Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 4:05 am
Looks like you didn't read what I wrote about the two layers of philosophy that become necessary after a point, or at least didn't get the gist of it. Let's see what happens if I unpack things more.
Ultimately we are never acting autonomously, say on the 'chemical level' we see that all our chemicals follow the laws of matter. But your brain is made of some 10^25-10^26 molecules, and parts of it are specifically arranged for everyday-scale decision-making, that's what the prefrontal cortex does.
It's just highly nonsensical to treat the behaviour of the human brain the same way we treat the behaviour of a single molecule or atom, due to the high-level, complex emergent behaviours that the brain has evolved for. While in the absolute sense we never have free will, this is largely irrelevant in everyday life. Most people can make everyday choices just fine, and whatever choice they make is the determined outcome. And that still follows the laws of matter.
Now it's possible that this baffles you because you could have some prefrontal cortex dysfunction or some other issue, and can't really make decisions. But the average human can, so let's just assume that Mary can too. Moral responsibility is also an everyday world issue, we can make everyday life choices and we have moral responsibility.
All I can say is he is going to read this and again assume you are saying something like the complexity of the brain makes it free from the laws of matter. I am not saying that is what you are saying. In fact near the beginning you make this clear. Just predicting, given the history where even more obviously non-free will positions are interpreted as saying that brain cells are autonomous and not controlled by the laws of the universe.
In parallel, in many posts he will write what are essentially arguments of incredulity. Or perhaps assertions of incredulity. How could one possibly give someone responsiblity for their inevitable acts/choices? Two things that never seem to happen:
1) When someone does do this with a specific act - does explain how this can be non-contradictory, he does not interact with those posts and/or repeats his incredulity.
2) He never justifies his incredulity. I do have sympathy for the incredulity, but I think if he actually tried to argue it, he might find that it is a problematic default. It also need justification and at present is nowhere an argument from him.
So, what we get is every compatibilist or other person arguing the determinism and moral responsiblity are compatible is told they are saying brain cells or brains do not follow the laws of the universe, and he continues to tell them this even when they explain they are not and why.
Further I never see any argument for how libertarian free will actually fits with moral responsibilty. If one doesn't go into this issue, it may seem, from common sense, to be a fit. But if these free acts are not caused by either external or internal causes (or a combination) what do they have to do with the person who 'performed them'. The acts were not caused by the person or their interests, goals, motivations, desires, values, in the context of their knowledge and external restraints. No explanation how this wouldn't be random?
So, the thread will go on for years without him directl engaging with positions that do not fit his binary schema - libertarian free will of a specific type or hard determinism, with the former having brains that are exceptions to the laws of matter. Every single position he faces will be treated as the former, if it isn't a hard determinist. Every time any other position will face incredulity that brain cells are not controlled by the laws of matter. This position and assumption will never be justified. His incredulity will never be justified - it's common sense/obvious/apriori. If people tell him they don't actually believe brain cells or phsychology or whatever if free from the laws of matter, if they challenge his strange interpretation of their positions, they will be told in a variety of ways that they are dogmatic, authoritarian types. If third parties point out he hasn't correctly interpreted them or an article, he will never go back to the article and quote from it and justify his position, he will accuse the person of being authoritarian and assuming they are infallible.
The only interesting patches of this thread are where other people start interacting with each other and ignore him.
