compatibilism

[iambiguous]

"In philosophy, Occam's razor...is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity", although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one." wiki

Again -- click -- this is one of those expressions posters here will sometimes use in order to encompass what they deem to be the next best thing to objectivism. Or, perhaps, the next best thing to God?

In other words, what do you know, their own understanding of determinism and compatibilism reflect the simplest explanation!

On the other hand, if we start with the assumption that the human brain itself is just more matter, and that all matter obeys particular "immutable laws", why not conclude that the simplest explanation is determinism.

If you have a better tool for philosophy than Occam's razor then present it. If you have no tool then philosophy is pointless because you have infinitely many explanations/takes for anything, and they are all equally wrong.

And of course there's no response to this one, there never is. Either you're using a worse tool than Occam's razor to rank philosophical speculations. Or you're using no tool at all to rank philosophical speculations, in which case everything you say in philosophy is 100% pointless, so why say anything at all.

But someone who strongly rejects objectivism seems to be using some kind of tool. Wonder what it is.

Absolutely shameless!





he was compelled to post

[iambiguous]

Okay: if the "material" is different, or "not the same" between dead and alive brains, where is this "mind" stuff located? What is it made of?

I'm not postulating mind stuff, or saying it doesn't exist.

Well, you say that dead brains are "different" in "materials" than live ones. I just want to know what "materials" are being added or subtracted; for that, surely would be the "materials" to which you allude.

Of course, with IC, free will revolves entirely around his assumptions that 1] the Christian God does exist and, 2[ that He embedded autonomy into our very souls at the point of conception and, 3] that even though he is omniscient and knows everything that we were ever going to do, we're still free to...to do otherwise?

[iambiguous]

Are you actually pretending any of this is concommitant with what human beings do?

Yeah, that's just what Iambiguous does .. he denies that what animals do is applicable to humans.

Click!

Unless, of course, if I ever did deny that, I was never able not to?

On the other hand, perhaps he will be so kind as to substantiate this accusation. Let him note where I deny that what animals do is applicable to humans. Given that we evolved from them, how could there not be any number of things that we do share in common?

Or, as with those like IC, will he eventually bring this all back around to a God, the God, his God?

But what animals do, demonstrates what brains do ... without free-will, without soul, without consciousness.

Yes, the brains of other animals do allow them to sustain their own subsistence from day to day. Just like our own brain does. Only to the best of my current knowledge they don't get into [at times] heated philosophical discussions about "what it all means".

If in fact it means anything at all.

[iambiguous]

Really, note what I posted here that led you to believe that to me everyone is an unhinged objectivist.

On the other hand, it might instead be this: that the arguments I make in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics...that human existence is essentially meaningless, that human morality is rooted existentially in dasein, that death is "the end" period, that free will is a psychological illusion...disturbs those here who [to me] seem hell bent on routing philosophy in the general direction of their very own One True Path

Instead, I suggest that some embody objectivism because they were indoctrinated as children to believe that what they were told about the world around them is in fact the objective truth. Or, instead, given one or another set of uniquely personal experiences, they have come as adults to champion one moral and political and philosophical path [set of prejudices] over all the others.

And when you are in your frequent cataloguing mode, you use Wikipedia to make lists that include a majority of the members of the human race.

Huh?

Do or do not members of the human race congregate into any number of moral, political and spiritual communities? And are or are not the stakes here enormous: morality, immortality, salvation.

When it is pointed out that many people with a wide range of beliefs, including those like Atla who share your beliefs on your pet issues, have the same reaction to you.

Of course, the whole focus of this thread is to note just that...and then to wonder how, if our brains really are just more matter, they too are not wholly in sync with the "immutable laws of matter". And if that is the case, what does it really mean to hold someone else responsible for posting here if they were never able not to?

Over and over again, however, I flat out acknowledge my own conclusions here even if embedded in a free will world are merely what I construe subjectively/intersubjectively to be true "in my head" "here and now". Based largely on the life I lived and the experiences I had and the relationships I sustained and the information and knowledge I accumulated.

I think it's quite fair to consider hell bent to indicate unhinged.

Well -- click -- the closest I've ever come [so far] to "understanding" myself here revolves around this:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles from The Magus

Only, unlike others, I have [so far] no illusions about ever really coming to grips with what that means...objectively?

And you aim your judgments at most people on earth. And anyone who has an issue with how you post, you frame and necessarily afraid of your ideas and you as some threat to their fragile denials of their own, deep down belief in what you are saying.

Once again, if this is what you need to conclude about me in order to sustain what you need conclude about yourself...?

As for me? Nope -- click -- it's definitely not that. On the contrary, there is nothing I want more than to come upon someone here [or there, or there] able to convince me that those assumptions are not only wrong but that in fact their own set of assumptions really, really are true.

That might also be true. It's not however mutually exclusive with seeing objectivsits and those critical of you as unhinged.

Ironically, of course, given my own "understanding" of all this "here and now", sure, you may well be closer to whatever "reality" is than "I" am. But please note the things I have posted here that led you to believe that anyone critical of me is unhinged.

And whatever dasein has led you to have your beliefs about other people or the people you quote, it never seems to include reason. And least the justifications are there.

You justify other things, yes., but not these.

Click.

This, from my own frame of mind here and now, is simply preposterous. It's just you scrambling to come up with something -- anything -- that will get me out of your head.

What I see in you here is basically what I recognized in myself all those years ago...the need to go to any lengths to keep from becoming fractured and fragmented morally, politically, spiritually and philosophically.

[iambiguous]

As I noted to Phyllo, yes, that does sound familiar. But when you are posting in 3 different philosophy forums, it's easy to lose track of what you posted and where. Not that any of this can in and of itself be pinned down as autonomous or not.

OK, maybe you have dementia. I'm serious, not being insulting. I posted here links to where I made the arguments in the two forums we meet in. I gave you the links. You openly said you weren't going to bother:

Come on, if you are going to resort to out and out bullshit, you might want to reconsider and accept that, yeah, maybe you are posting only what you could never have not posted.

To wit:

And all I asked of others here is that -- click -- if their own memory is still largely intact, would they please attempt to note what they themselves believe you were attempting to convey with that example.

I gave you the links to the two posts in a row in this thread where I presented a concrete example with argument and the first post in ILP where i did this. You chose NOT to follow the links, but want me to rewrite the arguments here for you. In both forums you chose not to respond. As I show in the other links in that post in the sequence in ILP. But you could ignore those other links and just go to the posts where I presented the argument...or not....

If, in a free will universe, this what you have actually managed to think yourself into believing is true about me, then aren't we pretty much wasting each other's time?

don't respond, whatever.......

Click?

I have made it rather clear that the only reason I respond to you here at all is because you insist on following me around from thread to thread in order to "expose" me to others. Look, I respect both your intelligence and your commitment to philosophy. But I almost never read the stuff you post apart from that. And I would not be at all shocked if science and philosophy came around to your own conclusions here. But over and again it seems [to me] that commitment revolves more around exchanges with those like VA here.

And that is just not the sort of philosophical exchanges I pursue in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics.

So, don't respond to me and I won't respond to you.

[Atla]

If you have a better tool for philosophy than Occam's razor then present it. If you have no tool then philosophy is pointless because you have infinitely many explanations/takes for anything, and they are all equally wrong.

And of course there's no response to this one, there never is. Either you're using a worse tool than Occam's razor to rank philosophical speculations. Or you're using no tool at all to rank philosophical speculations, in which case everything you say in philosophy is 100% pointless, so why say anything at all.

But someone who strongly rejects objectivism seems to be using some kind of tool. Wonder what it is.

Absolutely shameless!





he was compelled to post

As I said, no response to this one, just an ad hom, and some drivel about being "compelled" whatever that means. What I wrote must have been disturbing to him.

[iambiguous]

Really, note what I posted here that led you to believe that to me everyone is an unhiged objectivst.

Instead, I suggest that some embody objectivism becauue they were indoctrinated as children to believe that what they were told about the world around them is in fact the objective truth. Or, instead, given one or another set of uniquely personal experiences, they have come as adults to champion one moral and political and philosophical path [set of prejudices] over all the others.

As for me? Nope -- click -- it's definitely not that. On the contrary, there is nothing I want more than to come upon someone here [or there] able to convince me that those assumptions are not only wrong but that in fact their own set of assumptions really, really are true.

Err.. so you want to be an objectivist more than anything, just the right kind of objectivist? Forget that, humans are limited beings with limited knowledge, there's no objective knowledge for us. There is no human whose set of assumptions are really, really true.

Unless there is a big, universal miracle going on, but I wouldn't count on that.

Wait -- click -- above you accused me of accusing others of being unhinged objectivists. Please cite how you came to that conclusion given the things I have posted so far.

Also, what I suggested is certainly not that I want to be an objectivist just in order to be one. What I would like is to encounter arguments able to convince me that human existence isn't essentially meaningless and purposeless, that there is the philosophical equivalent of objective morality, that death is not just a tumble down into the abyss, that autonomy is the real deal.

And, indeed, it is what I construe to be the limitations of philosophy [and its tools] in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics that I focus far, far, far more on.

Okay, but do you also acknowledge at least the possibility that in defining compatibilism as you do, you were never able to opt freely to define it otherwise "then and there"?

Then those here who insist that compatibilism can be defined objectively...but only as they do. If, for example, you want the one and the only philosophically correct definition.

Irrelevant, I could define compatibilism differently, I can make everyday choices. Definitions are subjectively/intersubjectively established. There is no such thing as the one and the only philosophically correct definition.

All you are doing here, in my view, is telling me once again what you believe "in your head". Just as I do myself here. But for the hard determinists, if you are never able to define something other than as your brain compels to define it, then all definitions are interchangeable if for all practical purposes our behaviors themselves are wholly determined.

As for these "everyday choices" of yours, I'm still not certain how far you take this. Or, perhaps, how far it can be taken by mere mortals in a No God world. For example, you are reading these words. Now, are you reading them because you freely chose to?

Sure, I may be misunderstanding your point. You may be misunderstanding mine. So, philosophically or otherwise, how do we arrive at a conclusion that...settles it? Or, perhaps, that comes closer to what might be deemed settling it.

What I care about is the extent to which someone claiming to believe this or that "in their head" is, in fact, able to prompt me to stick around for more. Why? Because their argument does contain the sort of evidence that, say, jolts me in a whole new direction. Like, say, up out of this fucking hole. The sort of "just the facts, Ma'am" assessment able to provide the sort of empirical/experiential/experimental evidence that will bring me back to the comfort and consolation I once nestled down into for years myself.

If that comfort was created by the early-life illusion of objectivism, certainty, certain knowledge, then forget about it. Imo the best you can do is what I do, quasi-certainty using quasi-objectivism using Occam's razor. I find it "good enough", psychologically comforting enough though.

Again, the assumption I am making here is this: that the assumption you are making here is that using or not using Occam is part of your "everyday" freedom to choose. And that this is true for you [as far as I can tell] because you believe that it is true. Believing something apparently is what makes it true.

Actually, my point revolves more around the assumption that given free will, the tools available to philosophers -- http://www.philosophyideas.com/files/in ... osophy.pdf -- appear to exhibit profound limitations in regard to conflciting goods.

And, if there is no free will, then all of these tools would appear [to me "here and now"] no less manifestations of the only possible reality.

I've no idea what you mean here. The philosophical human tools of this reality are the philosophical human tools of this reality, but that has nothing to do with this reality necessarily being the only possible reality - why would it?

Tell that to the hardcore objectivists who come here in order to set us all staight regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics. Still, the difference between myself and other nihilists [in a free will world] is the distinction I make between human interactions in the either/or world and the reality of conflicting goods in the is/ought world. Now, in a wholly determined universe, those worlds are "at one" with the only possible reality. Whereas, in a free will universe, conflicting assessments precipitate conflicting behaviors; and it is around our behaviors that consequences pile up.

How about this: in the sense you are able to then demonstrate that what you do believe in your head here is demonstrable empirically, experientially and [along with scientists] experimentally such that it will all finally be resolved.

Don't know what you mean, what do you mean by "resolve", that looks like an objectivist idea.

No -- click -- I'm just inclined here and now to encourage those on both sides of this philosophical antinomy to make more of an effort to substantiate their own "world of words" with the stuff coming from the hard guys and gals regarding how the brain seems to function in regard to experiments that might be conducted.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not postulating mind stuff, or saying it doesn't exist.

Well, you say that dead brains are "different" in "materials" than live ones. I just want to know what "materials" are being added or subtracted; for that, surely would be the "materials" to which you allude.

Of course, with IC, free will revolves entirely around his assumptions...

Not at all. I have not called upon a single Theistic assumption in order to make the case against either Determinism or Compatiblism. All my arguments could be equally made by any Atheist.

Check back. You'll see.

[Atla]

Wait -- click -- above you accused me of accusing others of being unhinged objectivists. Please cite how you came to that conclusion given the things I have posted so far.

On the other hand, it might instead be this: that the arguments I make in regard to meaning and morality and metaphysics...that human existence is essentially meaningless, that human morality is rooted existentially in dasein, that death is "the end" period, that free will is a psychological illusion...disturbs those here who [to me] seem hell bent on routing philosophy in the general direction of their very own One True Path

After bashing me and others in multiple posts about objectivisist attitudes (which I don't actually have), you wrote the above. Hell bent on the One True path = unhinged objectivist, duh.

Also, what I suggested is certainly not that I want to be an objectivist just in order to be one. What I would like is to encounter arguments able to convince me that human existence isn't essentially meaningless and purposeless, that there is the philosophical equivalent of objective morality, that death is not just a tumble down into the abyss, that autonomy is the real deal.

And, indeed, it is what I construe to be the limitations of philosophy [and its tools] in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics that I focus far, far, far more on.

On the absolute level of philosophy, human existence is meaningless and purposeless, there is no objective morality, death is the end and autonomy isn't the real deal. You can only find/make meaning for everyday human life, create subjective/intersubjective morality for everyday human life, live like you won't die, live knowing that you have "free will" in the everyday choices sense.

Unless some big, universal miracle is going on but I wouldn't count on it. (Imo there might actually be a universal miracle going on, but even if that's the case, it probably only concerns one or a few people.)

All you are doing here, in my view, is telling me once again what you believe "in your head". Just as I do myself here. But for the hard determinists, if you are never able to define something other than as your brain compels to define it, then all definitions are interchangeable if for all practical purposes our behaviors themselves are wholly determined.

Again, whoever these hard determinists are, they just sound like a bunch of idiots. Everything being ultimately determined, doesn't mean that we should view our definitions as freely interchangable in the everyday life.

As for these "everyday choices" of yours, I'm still not certain how far you take this. Or, perhaps, how far it can be taken by mere mortals in a No God world. For example, you are reading these words. Now, are you reading them because you freely chose to?

Sure, I may be misunderstanding your point. You may be misunderstanding mine. So, philosophically or otherwise, how do we arrive at a conclusion that...settles it? Or, perhaps, that comes closer to what might be deemed settling it.

Again, the assumption I am making here is this: that the assumption you are making here is that using or not using Occam is part of your "everyday" freedom to choose. And that this is true for you [as far as I can tell] because you believe that it is true. Believing something apparently is what makes it true.

In the everyday sense, I'm reading this because I wanted to, choose to. Could have done a whole lot of other things.

I don't think we can really settle this, I just think that for someone like me who gave up any "hope" for objectivism long ago, this is one of the best views - it's realistic and also psychologically quite comfortable.

Now do we actually slightly "bend" the universe's past and future, by making everyday choices? The universe determines what we do, but do we also slightly determine the universe's past and future, because all perspectives are equal?

I suspect the answer is actually yes, and that this is the true meaning of determinism, but don't think this can be proven or disproven. Where most people see determinism as a yes or no question, I see it as an infinite regress. We do things because they were determined. Things are determined because we choose them. I suspect what is actually going on is where these two views meet in infinite regress, even if our input is very, very small.

Tell that to the hardcore objectivists who come here in order to set us all staight regarding meaning, morality and metaphysics.

I do, and I don't feel particularly threatened by objectivists, objectivism is dying in the West. They are good target practice.

[iambiguous]

Well, you say that dead brains are "different" in "materials" than live ones. I just want to know what "materials" are being added or subtracted; for that, surely would be the "materials" to which you allude.

Of course, with IC, free will revolves entirely around his assumptions that 1] the Christian God does exist and, 2[ that He embedded autonomy into our very souls at the point of conception and, 3] that even though he is omniscient and knows everything that we were ever going to do, we're still free to...to do otherwise?

Not at all. I have not called upon a single Theistic assumption in order to make the case against either Determinism or Compatiblism. All my arguments could be equally made by any Atheist.

Check back. You'll see.

Note to others:

Click.

What to make of IC, right?

Here is someone who is a Christian convinced that "somehow" an omniscient God does not obviate his own autonomy.

Not only that, but his belief in God is not predicated on a leap of faith or "because the Bible says so", so much as on the belief that He does in fact reside in Heaven. And that this is as demonstrable to him as someone else demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

And yet you wouldn't know this by following him at PN. Instead, he seems far, far, far more interested in going into any number of threads and getting into these endless "philosophical discussions" about, well, philosophical stuff.

As though establishing his bona fides here is actually more important than saving souls!



Note to William Lane Craig:

Show him how it's done.

[Belinda]

Of course, with IC, free will revolves entirely around his assumptions that 1] the Christian God does exist and, 2[ that He embedded autonomy into our very souls at the point of conception and, 3] that even though he is omniscient and knows everything that we were ever going to do, we're still free to...to do otherwise?

Not at all. I have not called upon a single Theistic assumption in order to make the case against either Determinism or Compatiblism. All my arguments could be equally made by any Atheist.

Check back. You'll see.

Note to others:

Click.

What to make of IC, right?

Here is someone who is a Christian convinced that "somehow" an omniscient God does not obviate his own autonomy.

Not only that, but his belief in God is not predicated on a leap of faith or "because the Bible says so", so much as on the belief that He does in fact reside in Heaven. And that this is as demonstrable to him as someone else demonstrating that the Pope resides in the Vatican.

And yet you wouldn't know this by following him at PN. Instead, he seems far, far, far more interested in going into any number of threads and getting into these endless "philosophical discussions" about, well, philosophical stuff.

As though establishing his bona fides here is actually more important than saving souls!



Note to William Lane Craig:

Show him how it's done.

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close ,as we now understand we have to cooperate with nature. It's impossible to cooperate and control at the same time.

[phyllo]

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close ,as we now understand we have to cooperate with nature. It's impossible to cooperate and control at the same time.

That has nothing to do with God or gods. Certain religions have anti-nature and/or human supremacist scriptures. (Or the scriptures are interpreted and used that way.)

IOW, the religions are the problem, not god(s). There are pro-nature religions.

That's not the only problem. Another one is human greed. Do we need destroy large natural areas in order to own large houses and properties?

As to controlling nature, humans have messed up to system so badly that intelligent control is the only way forward. For example, by decimating the predator population, we now have to have controlled hunting and intentional breeding and reintroduction programs.

[Belinda]

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close ,as we now understand we have to cooperate with nature. It's impossible to cooperate and control at the same time.

That has nothing to do with God or gods. Certain religions have anti-nature and/or human supremacist scriptures. (Or the scriptures are interpreted and used that way.)

IOW, the religions are the problem, not god(s). There are pro-nature religions.

That's not the only problem. Another one is human greed. Do we need destroy large natural areas in order to own large houses and properties?

As to controlling nature, humans have messed up to system so badly that intelligent control is the only way forward. For example, by decimating the predator population, we now have to have controlled hunting and intentional breeding and reintroduction programs.

You misunderstand what 'cooperate 'means in the context of reversing manmade climate change. If conservation measures don't cooperate with nature the measures won't reduce or reverse climate change.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, with IC, free will revolves entirely around his assumptions that 1] the Christian God does exist and, 2[ that He embedded autonomy into our very souls at the point of conception and, 3] that even though he is omniscient and knows everything that we were ever going to do, we're still free to...to do otherwise?

Not at all. I have not called upon a single Theistic assumption in order to make the case against either Determinism or Compatiblism. All my arguments could be equally made by any Atheist.

Check back. You'll see.

Note to others:

Why talk to them, instead of responding? Check out my claim, instead. If it's true, you should have evidence. Otherwise, your allegation is likely to be false.

[Immanuel Can]

IC probably does not see that the days of God are drawing to a close...

Well, we'll see. If you're right, time will tell. But I think you'll find out how wrong you really are.