Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:23 am That's what it all comes down to, right? The part where brain scientists either do or do not reach the point where they can demonstrate step by step by step what really does go on inside my own brain as, say, I type these words. Is it my brain just doing its thing wholly in sync with the laws of matter or is there an "I" in there that transcends the neurological and chemical interactions in order to create an actual autonomous being.

Click, it seems nothing will change this fantasy of his. If someone else said something like this, Iambiguous would likely respond with

On the other hand,
Actually,
On the contrary; "All of this going back to how the matter we call the scientists' brain's was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter."

Iambiguous doesn't realize that when he imagines a future scenario where scientists demonstrate or actually 'demonstrate' determinism or free will is the case, this ALSO would be determined in determinism. Further he, the reader or listener, to the scientists would also be determined. So, the determied scientist might think they demonstrated free will was the case (or determinism for that matter) but actually they too were merely compelled.

He loves to say the following:

The point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that we think, feel, say or do, that we were ever able to freely opt not to.

But for some reason he thinks this doesn't apply to situations where scientists reach conclusions or he about the conclusions he thinks they have reached.

You can't point out such absurdities and meet - no response at all - and then the silly not applying his own arguments to his own conclusions assertions just continue.

IOW he likes to dismiss other people's positions using certain lines of arguments that apply to his own positions, even after this is pointed out.

Well as long as we're still replying to the ol' goofball:

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:23 am Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too
New research findings, combined with philosophy, suggest free will is real but may not operate in the ways people expect
By Alessandra Buccella & Tomáš Dominik

Imagine you are shopping online for a new pair of headphones. There is an array of colors, brands and features to look at. You feel that you can pick any model that you like and are in complete control of your decision. When you finally click the “add to shopping cart” button, you believe that you are doing so out of your own free will.

More to the point, perhaps, are those who, when confronted with the possibility that literally everything they do is beyond their control, go ballistic.

It was a mistake for your parents to teach you how to read. What's the point of reading if your first instinct is to just interrupt the writer and say, "more to the point, I'd rather talk about this other thing entirely!"

That's not how reading works you silly dingus. You read the words and try to understand them, you don't read and then just ignore what they said and insert whatever other unrelated bullshit you feel like thinking about lmao.

How free are you? Will Americans be more free or less free next week?

It was a mistake for your parents to teach you how to read.

Consider his reply.

If he says something about determinism to someone, they might react by "going ballistic".

Contrast that with Mary's situation.

Nothing anyone says can possibly make her change her mind about the abortion.

In one case, the deterministic person reacts to verbal prompts. In the other case, deterministic Mary ignores all the verbal prompts.

And IC's position on Mary is the same: Arguments can't change deterministic Mary's decision.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 12:46 pm Well as long as we're still replying to the ol' goofball:

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 2:23 am Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too
New research findings, combined with philosophy, suggest free will is real but may not operate in the ways people expect
By Alessandra Buccella & Tomáš Dominik

Imagine you are shopping online for a new pair of headphones. There is an array of colors, brands and features to look at. You feel that you can pick any model that you like and are in complete control of your decision. When you finally click the “add to shopping cart” button, you believe that you are doing so out of your own free will.

More to the point, perhaps, are those who, when confronted with the possibility that literally everything they do is beyond their control, go ballistic.

It was a mistake for your parents to teach you how to read. What's the point of reading if your first instinct is to just interrupt the writer and say, "more to the point, I'd rather talk about this other thing entirely!"

That's not how reading works you silly dingus. You read the words and try to understand them, you don't read and then just ignore what they said and insert whatever other unrelated bullshit you feel like thinking about lmao.

Actually, many species of ducks mate for life.

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:26 pm How free are you? Will Americans be more free or less free next week?

Freedom is not the same as free-will.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:51 pm

That's not how reading works you silly dingus. You read the words and try to understand them, you don't read and then just ignore what they said and insert whatever other unrelated bullshit you feel like thinking about lmao.

Actually, many species of ducks mate for life.

And more to the point, the part where those ducks construe that they could ever not have mated for life.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:21 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:51 pm

That's not how reading works you silly dingus. You read the words and try to understand them, you don't read and then just ignore what they said and insert whatever other unrelated bullshit you feel like thinking about lmao.

Actually, many species of ducks mate for life.

And more to the point, the part where those ducks construe that they could ever not have mated for life.

On the contrary, the point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that ducks think, feel, say or do, that they were ever able to freely opt not to. So, they could not ever have not mated for life.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:36 pm

It was a mistake for your parents to teach you how to read.

Consider his reply.

If he says something about determinism to someone, they might react by "going ballistic".

Contrast that with Mary's situation.

Nothing anyone says can possibly make her change her mind about the abortion.

In one case, the deterministic person reacts to verbal prompts. In the other case, deterministic Mary ignores all the verbal prompts.

And IC's position on Mary is the same: Arguments can't change deterministic Mary's decision.

It is possible for people not to be affected by what other people say and write. We have evidence in this forum. Perhaps they're right about Mary, though I don't know how IC would know since she's Iamb's hypothetical real person.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:27 pm On the contrary, the point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that ducks think, feel, say or do, that they were ever able to freely opt not to. So, they could not ever have not mated for life.

Curious, Iambig seems to keep repeating this kind of point over and over and over and over again, like it was some kind of killer argument. And I can never make out what the argument actually is. Isn't that just the definition of determinism? Why repeat a definition and act like an argument was made?

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:08 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:27 pm On the contrary, the point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that ducks think, feel, say or do, that they were ever able to freely opt not to. So, they could not ever have not mated for life.

Curious, Iambig seems to keep repeating this kind of point over and over and over and over again, like it was some kind of killer argument. And I can never make out what the argument actually is. Isn't that just the definition of determinism? Why repeat a definition and act like an argument was made?

Not only does he repeat it over and over again, he's convinced it's like some kind of soul-destroying insight, rather than... just something we've all thought, and then thought past, because we don't get stuck like he gets stuck.

You often hear him talk about how we're stuck. What he really means is HE'S stuck, because he can't get past that tought.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:08 pm Curious, Iambig seems to keep repeating this kind of point over and over and over and over again, like it was some kind of killer argument.

Exactly. I have asked him several times to actually make the argument. I think he thinks that determinism eliminates the posibility of knowledge. Which is self-undermining, unless he knows that determinism is not the case.

He stays at a gestural level. Whether it is his intention or not, avoiding making arguments and avoiding justifying assertions might seems to minimize any burden he has to demonstrate anything.

And I can never make out what the argument actually is. Isn't that just the definition of determinism? Why repeat a definition and act like an argument was made?

Because then he'd 1) have to actually do a bit of work 2) he might notice that it's not that easy to justify that position 3) there's less for us to point out as flawed reasoning. But ironically he expects others to not only justify their arguments, but to justify them so that ALL reasonable men and women would agree.

I think he has similar motivations for his avoiding actually interacting with other people's arguments or justifications. But who knows. It's certainly convenient.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:34 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:08 pm Curious, Iambig seems to keep repeating this kind of point over and over and over and over again, like it was some kind of killer argument.

Exactly. I have asked him several times to actually make the argument. I think he thinks that determinism eliminates the posibility of knowledge. Which is self-undermining, unless he knows that determinism is not the case.

He stays at a gestural level. Whether it is his intention or not, avoiding making arguments and avoiding justifying assertions might seems to minimize any burden he has to demonstrate anything.

And I can never make out what the argument actually is. Isn't that just the definition of determinism? Why repeat a definition and act like an argument was made?

Because then he'd 1) have to actually do a bit of work 2) he might notice that it's not that easy to justify that position 3) there's less for us to point out as flawed reasoning. But ironically he expects others to not only justify their arguments, but to justify them so that ALL reasonable men and women would agree.

I think he has similar motivations for his avoiding actually interacting with other people's arguments or justifications. But who knows. It's certainly convenient.

He seems to spend a lot of time every day on the interaction of non-interaction. Genius. It's like working a lot in order to avoid earning money. Walking a lot in order to avoid getting anywhere. Talking a lot in order to avoid saying anything.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:12 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 10:08 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:27 pm On the contrary, the point some hard determinists argue is there is nothing at all that ducks think, feel, say or do, that they were ever able to freely opt not to. So, they could not ever have not mated for life.

Curious, Iambig seems to keep repeating this kind of point over and over and over and over again, like it was some kind of killer argument. And I can never make out what the argument actually is. Isn't that just the definition of determinism? Why repeat a definition and act like an argument was made?

Not only does he repeat it over and over again, he's convinced it's like some kind of soul-destroying insight, rather than... just something we've all thought, and then thought past, because we don't get stuck like he gets stuck.

You often hear him talk about how we're stuck. What he really means is HE'S stuck, because he can't get past that tought.

I noticed his stuckness could have a lot to do with some kind of dualist body and soul belief. Maybe he's still a theistic thinker deep down.

Click, of course. Though that may or may not do any good.

Now that this thread has basically become the "get iambiguous" exchange, I can't help but be all that much more convinced as to what this is really all about.

It's about my own philosophy really beginning to sink in. In other words, what if human existence really is essentially meaningless and purposeless? What if human morality really is rooted existentially in dasein? What if being fractured and fragmented is entirely reasonable in a No God universe? What if death really does result in oblivion?

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

And here I am attempting to encounter arguments able to perhaps convince me that I am indeed wrong about these things. But over and again, instead, I get these whine, whine, whine declamations.

How about this...

Those above who make this all about me, how about if they make it all about compatibilism instead. They start a new thread and discuss it amongst themselves with absolutely no "groots" from me.