Philosophy Now Forum

For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/

compatibilism

https://canzookia.com/viewtopic.php?t=34247

Page 342 of 422

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Mon Oct 07, 2024 11:52 pm
by iambiguous
phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:07 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:02 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:38 pmYou're worse than Imabiguous.
Are you the forum's defender?
I'm a defender of reasoning.
That's iambiguous please.

Other than that, by all means, carry on. For example, reconfiguring this thread into yet another rendition of Pedro's Corner.

Besides, if I really did have free will, would I do something like this


8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am
by iambiguous
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:48 pmNo, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?
Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here. We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?

And, of course, the farther out on the metaphysical limb we go, the more surreal and mysterious existence itself can seem. But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.

As for the rest of it, once again, I'll leave it up to others here to --click -- decide for themselves if Atla actually addresses the points I raised.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am
by iambiguous
I've encountered a new conscious state that is particularly perplexing.

1] I ingest THC gummies just before going to sleep
2] after about an hour or so, I begin to "see" all manner of things...shapes, colors, geometric patterns, people, things. The people and things however are always very indistinct.
3] last night something really strange happened
4] my brain created these accounting sheets, and they were set in motion, sheet after sheet top to bottom...numbers letters symbols.
5] this has often happened
6] only out of the blue last night I did something I had never done...I tried to slow down the sheets so I could see what was being recorded on them
7] Amazingly enough [to me] I was able to actually do so. I could even "stop" a sheet and more clearly see what was in each block...only to discover it was largely gibberish to me

Here's the thing...

My brain is creating these images as though I were dreaming. But I am able to manipulate them in a way that never, ever happens in dreams. It's as though I had "somehow" made contact with my brain. On the other hand, over and over and over again, my brain will "jerk" me to another set of images. Letting me know perhaps that it is still in charge?

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 am
by Iwannaplato
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:48 pmNo, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?
Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here.
That's your assessment? lots of people get told that? There are no patterns? There aren't posters who get that response more regularly than others?
We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
I find this a very, very odd response that does not move the discussion forward at all.

For example: you thought he was saying that human psychology was exempt from the laws of matter. He tells you that he does not believe that. You could quote the part of what he wrote that led you to think that. He then has the opportunity now to see where you got the idea. He can then clairfy: no, I meant X. And explain how that fits the sentence. Further you could acknowledge or consider that perhaps he doesn't believe that human psychology is exempt from the laws of matter. OK, you could say, you don't believe that. Then I don't understand how you could say ___________. And you quote from his writing.

Instead you go ad hom.
as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
and
But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.
He tells you he doesn't believe in what you attributed to him and your response is that he thinks his positions are the optimal or only rational assessments of, well, everything!!!!

That's a really odd, uncharitable interpretation of someone saying they don't believe what you assumed/interpreted/said they believed. Maybe how he wrote implied or somehow stated it. You could show that. Perhaps he communicated poorly.

Instead of investigating that or moving forward, given he doesn't believe that, third parties are called in and you insulted him.

Also note this is precisely the same interpretation/assumption you have made about philosophers in articles by people who directly say they don't believe in free will and in posters here who do not believe that brains are exempt from determinism and haven't written that they believe it. At no point after this has been pointed out have you gone back to what anyone has written and quoted them. Here, here's where he or she asserted that human brains are exempt from the laws of matter.

If people either writing about their own beliefs and assertions or writing about your interpretation of the writers of articles point out that they person did not assert that, instead of explaining where you got the idea, you just to judgment their act of pointing this out as some kind of dominance move, an act of hubris, as if people can never disagree about an interpretion and supply some support for the claim. You'd think it would not be considered a dominance move to say 'Hey, I don't believe what you attributed to me', but even this is some kind of act that justifies assessing the person's character on all issues.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:37 am
by Iwannaplato
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am I've encountered a new conscious state that is particularly perplexing.

1] I ingest THC gummies just before going to sleep
2] after about an hour or so, I begin to "see" all manner of things...shapes, colors, geometric patterns, people, things. The people and things however are always very indistinct.
3] last night something really strange happened
4] my brain created these accounting sheets, and they were set in motion, sheet after sheet top to bottom...numbers letters symbols.
5] this has often happened
6] only out of the blue last night I did something I had never done...I tried to slow down the sheets so I could see what was being recorded on them
7] Amazingly enough [to me] I was able to actually do so. I could even "stop" a sheet and more clearly see what was in each block...only to discover it was largely gibberish to me

Here's the thing...

My brain is creating these images as though I were dreaming. But I am able to manipulate them in a way that never, ever happens in dreams. It's as though I had "somehow" made contact with my brain. On the other hand, over and over and over again, my brain will "jerk" me to another set of images. Letting me know perhaps that it is still in charge?
This was a very interesting post. It's here in the compatibilism thread. I can see ways to connect this to issues around compatiblism. But what did this experience make you think of in relation to the thread/compatiblism?

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 3:40 am
by Atla
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:48 pmNo, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?
Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here. We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?

And, of course, the farther out on the metaphysical limb we go, the more surreal and mysterious existence itself can seem. But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.

As for the rest of it, once again, I'll leave it up to others here to --click -- decide for themselves if Atla actually addresses the points I raised.
And as I predicted, now he questions my stance of compatibilism.

Well considering that every single post of mine was trashing compatibilism, my claim is that compatibilism is so incoherent that one can't even be a compatibilist without completely redefining free will, and I'm a fucking DETERMINIST not a compatibilist...

I'm sorry but this level of inability to pay attention to and comprehend stuff, looks more like a medical issue that needs to be improved with medication, when possible. But indeed, you simply can't have discussions with others like this. Maybe don't do drugs huh.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 3:45 am
by iambiguous
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:48 pmNo, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?
Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here.
That's your assessment? lots of people get told that? There are no patterns? There aren't posters who get that response more regularly than others?
Please. Over and over and over again and on thread after thread after thread, posters here will shift into "huffing and puffing" mode. And precisely because someone refused to share their own assessment of morality or religion or politics or The Big Questions. And as often as not that will configure into what can be rather vicious personal attacks. Hell, it almost destroyed ILP

Or did imagine that when Satyr stopped posting here, all that crap went with him?
We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amI find this a very, very odd response that does not move the discussion forward at all.
For any number of FFOs here, when the exchange does not reinforce their own rooted existentially in dasein assessment, others are often attacked. And I mean no holds barred.

And, no, I'm not excluding myself here. Given particular moods, sure, I'll retort in kind. But I rarely engage in polemics anymore.
What's the point if you never really feel challenged?

And over and again with you, I note that for those particularly "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" posters here, moving the discussion forward means one and only one thing: coming to the same conclusions that they do.

Then the part where I flat out acknowledge that given my own philosophical interests, sure, I'll try to shift the exchanges in that direction. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no one here is actually required to read what I post.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amFor example: you thought he was saying that human psychology was exempt from the laws of matter. He tells you that he does not believe that.
Well, in my view, that's because it is understood [by Atla and his/her ilk] that how they define the meaning of determinism, free will and compatibilism is how you must define the meaning of them to. Or else, for example.

Whereas some hard determinists are compelled to insist that if the laws of matter are pertinent to the human brain, then everything that we think, feel, say and do may well be like so many dominoes toppling over.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amInstead you go ad hom.
...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
How is that a personal attack? I am suggesting that when some -- anyone -- becomes convinced that what they understand about the human brain and compatibilism is, in fact, what everyone should understand about them.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amand
But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.
Right, like that isn't actually the case regarding any number of dogmatists among us. Especially pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 5:10 am
by Atla
Here is some interesting new research, it claims that nowadays we have to make so many everyday life choices in fact, that it's starting to break our prefrontal cortex.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzLPa6NbcrE

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 5:19 am
by Iwannaplato
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 3:45 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am



Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here.
That's your assessment? lots of people get told that? There are no patterns? There aren't posters who get that response more regularly than others?
Please. Over and over and over again and on thread after thread after thread, posters here will shift into "huffing and puffing" mode. And precisely because someone refused to share their own assessment of morality or religion or politics or The Big Questions. And as often as not that will configure into what can be rather vicious personal attacks. Hell, it almost destroyed ILP
Again, that has little to do with what you said and I responded to. I see all sorts of disagreements, but I see a pattern of you being told over and over that you misinterpret things that we say or the articles you quote say. When this happen, unlike usual practice in such situations, you do not turn to the orginal text and explain where your interpretation came from. Of course people huff and puff - this was about the idea that there are lots of people, rather than something that might apply to you more often. You make this vague claim as if it is a common complaint and therefore has nothing to do with your behavior.
Or did imagine that when Satyr stopped posting here, all that crap went with him?
That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. And obviously I think crap is continuing here. A near random, irrelevant point. I don't expect you to read a lot of my posts, but please show me were you get the idea I think crap has not continued here after Satyr left. Please, show me anything at all that I have written anywhere that indicates I not longer see crap being posted here or this is, ironically, implied by my calling you out on your crap.
We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amI find this a very, very odd response that does not move the discussion forward at all.
For any number of FFOs here, when the exchange does not reinforce their own rooted existentially in dasein assessment, others are often attacked. And I mean no holds barred.
But that's what you did. He said he didn't say something and doesn't believe it and you attacked him.
And, no, I'm not excluding myself here. Given particular moods, sure, I'll retort in kind. But I rarely engage in polemics anymore.
What's the point if you never really feel challenged?
Nothing here on point. There's really nothing to do with Satyr or the crash on ILP related to someone saying you attributed a position them they don't have. You could quote what led you to that conclusion. You could move forward no longer assuming that, but you opted to attack him. When this is pointed out, you huffed and puffed and your continue it here.
And over and again with you, I note that for those particularly "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" posters here, moving the discussion forward means one and only one thing: coming to the same conclusions that they do.
I guess you didn't read my post.

Let me quote myself for the post you seem to think you are responding to....
You could quote the part of what he wrote that led you to think that. He then has the opportunity now to see where you got the idea. He can then clairfy: no, I meant X. And explain how that fits the sentence. Further you could acknowledge or consider that perhaps he doesn't believe that human psychology is exempt from the laws of matter. OK, you could say, you don't believe that. Then I don't understand how you could say ___________. And you quote from his writing.
How on earth could you call that me being arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian? How is that me saying the only way to move forward is to come to the same conclusions I do?

How could you possibly have drawn that conclusion?

Maybe it was implicit in what Atla said. Maybe he openly said it. You drew a conclusion and attributed a position. I suggested that when you disagree with someone YOU COULD THEN PRESENT THE REASONS WHY YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO.

That moves things forward. Maybe you and Atla will never agree. Perhaps you will remain certain that what you attributed to him was an accurate attribution and he will never acknowledge it.

But it certainly opens the possibility for coming to agreement. I've seen many people here say they could have worded something better, for example. And it was an invitation on my part for you to support your position.
Then the part where I flat out acknowledge that given my own philosophical interests, sure, I'll try to shift the exchanges in that direction. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, no one here is actually required to read what I post.
That holds for us also. You are under no obligation to read what we post. So what?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amFor example: you thought he was saying that human psychology was exempt from the laws of matter. He tells you that he does not believe that.
Well, in my view, that's because it is understood [by Atla and his/her ilk] that how they define the meaning of determinism, free will and compatibilism is how you must define the meaning of them to. Or else, for example.

Whereas some hard determinists are compelled to insist that if the laws of matter are pertinent to the human brain, then everything that we think, feel, say and do may well be like so many dominoes toppling over.
None of that explains why you believed he is insisting on what you attributed to him.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amInstead you go ad hom.
...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?
How is that a personal attack? I am suggesting that when some -- anyone -- becomes convinced that what they understand about the human brain and compatibilism is, in fact, what everyone should understand about them.
You're are telling him what he really means, and lo, it turns out to be they are completely certain of all their beliefs. And you say this after they tell you that they don't have the belief you attributed to them. As if it is authoritarian and considering oneself infallible to claim one doesn't believe what you tell them they believe.

You it seems to me are acting very authoritarian. The suggestion on my part that you explain what led you to attributing that belief to him is supposedly me saying you have to have my views on all sorts of things.

Him saying that he doesn't believe something you attributed to him means that he is utterly certain about all his beliefs and others should adopt them.

These seem like extreme interpretations and painting us as philosophical thugs, me for suggesting you explain why you drew a conclusion. I am demanding you agree by suggesting you explain your position.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 2:35 amand
But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.
Right, like that isn't actually the case regarding any number of dogmatists among us. Especially pertaining to meaning, morality and metaphysics.
This is what I see happening. I suggest you explain how you drew the conclusion about Atla.

This is interprested as doing something that led to the downfall of ILP. Of thinking all the crap stopped here when Satyr left. Of me telling you you must now agree with Atla's positions.

You don't even seem to notice the irony in how dogmatic you are being.

The horrible dominance of Atla saying that he does not believe what you said he did.
The horrible dominance of me suggesting you explain to Atla what led you to that belief which you interpreted as me saying shut up and just agree.


I mean, maybe you don't understand that it's a fairly useful process: someone asserts something. A second person says person 1 believe X. The first person says they don't believe X and haven't asserted X. The second person looks at what the other wrote, finds the part that led them to assert the other beleived in X and share it. They discuss what that meant. There are all sorts of ways this can move things forward. Any many of them do not at all include you just adopting the other person's position. Most of them.

That's not an autnoritarian suggestion on my part. It's not demanding you shut up and agree, quite the opposite.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 7:10 am
by Age
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:24 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:31 am
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 5:03 am Btw, to those who only mean everyday decision-making by free will: it's obvious that humans make everyday decisions, what do you need a philosophical debate for here?
And, LOL what has this one so-called 'philosophical debate', which has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, actually resolved, and solved?

In fact, what progress has actually been made in 'this philosophical debate'.
How was it for you, Age?
How was 'what', exactly, for me?

Until I wait for 'your clarification' here I do not see any 'debate' here at all, as both 'free will' and 'determinism' are concialliated. There was and is absolutely nothing at all to even reconcile here, let alone to debate. Well to me anyway.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:33 am
by Age
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 10:31 am And, LOL
...
Why do you keep replying to my comments Age? I don't read them.
Why would one ask another why they keep replying to their comments, and then claim that it does not even read the comments.

Obviously, if the question was answered, then it would not be read by the former one.

What is also OBVIOUS is that if this one was really not reading my comments, then it would, already, know that I am absolutely not replying to its comments.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm Is this some kind of grudge, are you pissed that I was right about your character all along?
Once more, this one asks questions to those that it claims that it will not even read the answers of. The IDIOCY here could not get MORE IDIOTIC, nor MORE RIDICULOUS.

Also, this one has never even said absolutely any thing about about some so-called 'my character'. So, how could it even be 'right' here?

Furthermore, the less this one reads, and responds, then the BETTER this is, for me. Therefore, I am certainly NOT so-called 'pissed' at all here. In fact, what is happening occuring now is PLEASING me, PROFUSELY.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm FYI, not only do we not read your comments now, but people won't read them in the future either.
Here is another example of one who believes ABSOLUTELY its own already pre-existing beliefs, but which were, laughingly and obviously, absolutely False, and Wrong.

But, this was EXACTLY how absolutely BLIND and STUPID ones like this one REALLY WERE, back then.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm You're not showing anything to anyone here,
LOL This is IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just how absolutely Truly STUPID this one REALLY IS
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm nor in the future, you're just wasting your time.
Yet, through your very own STUPIDITY, I just SHOWED and PROVED what I have just SAID, and CLAIMED, here.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:21 pm (Not that you could do anything more useful with it.)
Again, this one believes ABSOLUTELY things that it actually has absolutely NO idea NOR clue about AT ALL.

As it WILL, laughingly, PROVE ABSOLUTELY True, for me, here, again.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:36 am
by Age
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 7:48 pm
Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:15 pm
you are using "liberty" as a vague, meaningless term freighted with emotional connotations.
No, I'm not.

The problem between us, I think, is you're using freedom and liberty interchangeably. In day-to-day conversation this is fine. We all interchange the two. But freedom and liberty, while related, are not synonymous.

Freedom is doing what you want. I have a right to swing my fist.

Freedom is amoral.

Liberty is freedom tempered by responsibility (to one's self and one's fellows). My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
ONCE AGAIN it CONTRADICTS "itself".

And, ONCE MORE, it was, and is, TO BLIND to SEE and TO STUPID to UNDERSTAND.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 7:48 pm Liberty is moral.

Henry, you're making that up, or using some Quirkian idiosyncrasy.

Not at all.

We can start with T Jefferson: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

He went on to say I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Shall I post others?

Here's another: *Give me liberty or give me death! not Give me freedom or give me death!

*If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! -Patrick Henry, delegate from Hanover County, The Second Virginia Convention

Anyway, with the distinction between liberty and freedom in mind, mebbe you'll look more kindly on...

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.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:41 am
by Age
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 9:35 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 9:18 pm
Seems obvious to me: Joe fairly transacted (he respected the property rights of the original owner and met his price) instead of just taking what he wanted. Joe was responsible, he exercised his liberty (acted morally).
LOL This one continues to 'talk about 'natural rights', and/or 'moral absolutes', and then, LAUGHABLY, ADDS IN human beings made up 'laws' and 'rules' and somehow BELIEVES, absolutely, that the two are somehow related.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:48 am
by Age
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am I've encountered a new conscious state that is particularly perplexing.

1] I ingest THC gummies just before going to sleep
2] after about an hour or so, I begin to "see" all manner of things...shapes, colors, geometric patterns, people, things. The people and things however are always very indistinct.
3] last night something really strange happened
4] my brain created these accounting sheets, and they were set in motion, sheet after sheet top to bottom...numbers letters symbols.
5] this has often happened
6] only out of the blue last night I did something I had never done...I tried to slow down the sheets so I could see what was being recorded on them
7] Amazingly enough [to me] I was able to actually do so. I could even "stop" a sheet and more clearly see what was in each block...only to discover it was largely gibberish to me

Here's the thing...

My brain is creating these images as though I were dreaming. But I am able to manipulate them in a way that never, ever happens in dreams.
When you here say and claim, '... that never, ever happens in dreams', are you referring to you, alone, to some, or to all?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am It's as though I had "somehow" made contact with my brain.
Well when 'you' worked out and uncover who and what the 'I' is, exactly, and how It contacts not just with 'that brain', but all other things as well, then 'you' have 'grown up' and 'matured', somewhat.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am On the other hand, over and over and over again, my brain will "jerk" me to another set of images. Letting me know perhaps that it is still in charge?
'it' is, still, in charge of 'what', exactly?

Also, 'it' is NOT the brain, which is in charge 'there'. What is 'in charge' 'there' is something else, which you human beings keep SKIPPING OVER, and MISSING, completely.

Re: compatibilism

Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:56 am
by Age
Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 3:40 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 12:56 am
A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.
Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 2:48 pmNo, human psychology is NOT exempt from the laws of matter. Why can't you just respond to what was actually said?
Click.

Over and over and over again, lots of us get this from others here. We are told we didn't respond to what they said...as though there wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell that what they really mean is this: that what they said reflects either the optimal or the only rational assessment of, well, everything, right?

And, of course, the farther out on the metaphysical limb we go, the more surreal and mysterious existence itself can seem. But that will almost never stop the Atlas among us from speaking of things like compatibilism as though he really, really was describing it in the most rational manner.

As for the rest of it, once again, I'll leave it up to others here to --click -- decide for themselves if Atla actually addresses the points I raised.
And as I predicted, now he questions my stance of compatibilism.

Well considering that every single post of mine was trashing compatibilism, my claim is that compatibilism is so incoherent that one can't even be a compatibilist without completely redefining free will, and I'm a fucking DETERMINIST not a compatibilist...
Again, well according to "atla", again, anyway, 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?' is; DETERMINIST.

I'm sorry but this level of inability to pay attention to and comprehend stuff, looks more like a medical issue that needs to be improved with medication, when possible.[/quote]

YET, and laughably, when "atla's" inability to pay attention to, and comprehend, stuff, which another says and/or writes, then it is, again, a claimed 'medical issue', again for 'the other one', which also needs to be improved with medication, when possible.

Absolutely ALL miscommunication here is BECAUSE OF 'the other', well according to "atla" anyway.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 1:58 am But indeed, you simply can't have discussions with others like this. Maybe don't do drugs huh.
All times are UTC+01:00
Page 342 of 422

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited