Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:38 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:42 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 2:19 am

Hard-determinists are freaks as far as I am concerned!

LOL
LOL
LOL

AGAIN, this is WHAT HAPPENS when one HAS, and IS HOLDING ONTO, A 'BELIEF'.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 2:19 am Have you stumbled across the Boony's Room thought experiment upon the forum?

YES. However, you have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST AT ALL in DISCUSSING it.

Ah..bugger it, c'mon then Age simply answer A or B is true:

So, you will not or can not answer my 'thought experiment' but you WANT me to answer yours.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:38 am A) The two Boony's stay mirrored until they die?
B) The two Boony's eventually diverge in their actions?

A or B is true?

NEITHER. AGAIN because of the way you 'worded' your thought experiment.

And, ONCE MORE, WHY ONLY two choices ONLY?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:38 am

Noax wrote:

What say you Noax? A or B?


Boony's Room detailed here:
https://www.androcies.com/p_PHP/m_PhilosophyNow.php

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:38 am A) The two Boony's stay mirrored until they die?
B) The two Boony's eventually diverge in their actions?

A or B is true?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:37 am Under Bohmian mechanics, with all physical state symmetrical including air particles, all hidden variables, and including the state of the entire visible universe external to the white room, the symmetry is never broken.
Under pretty much any other interpretation, deterministic or not, the symmetry is soon broken.

I will amend my answer. 1, you ask which is true. For one, you commit the fallacy of positing an impossible thing, like asking if the sun were suddenly gone, would the Earth immediately start moving in a straight line or would it continue to orbit for at least 8 minutes? Such questions posit something impossible in this universe, so there is not answer to it.

Short story: our physics does not allow the scenario you describe.

2) I will amend the Bohmian answer to say the entire universe would need to be symmetrical, not just the visible universe. This is because Bohmian mechanics is not a local interpretation and thus allows 'spooky action at a distance', meaning superluminal causality. Answering A to the question gets more and more unlikely, but hey, it's a different universe, not this one, so anything goes.
You wouldn't need to put them in a room. There's already two of everybody so they're all quite used to it. It would be a true geocentric universe with yea, the sun(s) going around Earth and not the other way around.

So B is the likely answer in the absence of a specification of how the physics works in the universe with the room, but due to point 1, the answer has no bearing on how our universe works.

MWi says that both A and B are true, but in most worlds they diverge, but in some they must die in sync. MWI also says there must be worlds where free will exists, where there is true information in quantum randomness. I once did a whole topic exploring how creatures would evolve in such a world. They'd look nothing like us. Brains would be pointless.

Well ok then.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:38 am A) The two Boony's stay mirrored until they die?
B) The two Boony's eventually diverge in their actions?

A or B is true?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:37 am Under Bohmian mechanics, with all physical state symmetrical including air particles, all hidden variables, and including the state of the entire visible universe external to the white room, the symmetry is never broken.
Under pretty much any other interpretation, deterministic or not, the symmetry is soon broken.

I will amend my answer. 1, you ask which is true. For one, you commit the fallacy of positing an impossible thing, like asking if the sun were suddenly gone, would the Earth immediately start moving in a straight line or would it continue to orbit for at least 8 minutes? Such questions posit something impossible in this universe, so there is not answer to it.

But just because a question posits some thing impossible in the One and ONLY Universe, this NEVER means, ABSOLUTELY, that there is no answer to the question. So, your claim, here, is, ABSOLUTELY, False, and Wrong.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm Short story: our physics does not allow the scenario you describe.

1. 'your physics' is ONLY A PART of the ALL.

2. Hypothetical inquiries, thought experiments, and/or looking into impossible scenarios can HELP in the LEARNING and UNCOVERING of the ACTUAL Truths in Life.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm 2) I will amend the Bohmian answer to say the entire universe would need to be symmetrical, not just the visible universe. This is because Bohmian mechanics is not a local interpretation and thus allows 'spooky action at a distance', meaning superluminal causality. Answering A to the question gets more and more unlikely, but hey, it's a different universe, not this one, so anything goes.
You wouldn't need to put them in a room. There's already two of everybody so they're all quite used to it.

What do you mean, exactly, by, 'There is already two of everybody'?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm It would be a true geocentric universe with yea, the sun(s) going around Earth and not the other way around.

So B is the likely answer in the absence of a specification of how the physics works in the universe with the room, but due to point 1, the answer has no bearing on how our universe works.

MWi says that both A and B are true, but in most worlds they diverge, but in some they must die in sync.

So, if 'we' were to base 'our answers' on this 'one interpretation' only, then ALL answers are true, right, accurate, and correct, correct?

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm MWI also says there must be worlds where free will exists, where there is true information in quantum randomness.

Basing 'one's answers' on what is just 'an interpretation' ONLY, would be like basing 'one's answers' on 'a theory', ONLY, as though it has already been verified and is correct.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm I once did a whole topic exploring how creatures would evolve in such a world. They'd look nothing like us. Brains would be pointless.

Who cares?

There is NO answer to "attofishpi's" thought experiment because of just how CLUMSILY it was written.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pm
I think Iambiguous' answer is : The response to the scenario and to your requests is the response of "Mother Nature". He doesn't have a response of his own. He just acts out and types of what Mother Nature makes him do.

Is there anyone else here who actually believes that this is the case? Though I sure as shit am not going to be wasting my time trying to straighten him out for the umpteenth time.

Instead, over and again I note how those on both sides of the issue are able to make reasonable arguments for and against free will. And it's a reasonable argument from the compatibilists that I am most interested in.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pmIf I present the example of a boulder rolling down a hill towards a person :

The general interpretation of determinists is that the person will see the boulder and decide on some action based on this physical abilities, personality traits, understanding of physics, etc. He then moves left, right, takes cover, stays on the spot based on that decision.

No, the general interpretation among any number of determinists I have bumped into over the years online is that boulders and human beings are essentially interchangeable. Only the boulder is not likely to embody the psychological illusion of freedom that we have.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pmI think in Iambiguous' version of deteminism, the person makes none of those decisions. Somehow Mother Nature decides what he will do and makes him do it. IOW, in his version, the person is passive, lacking any control, and Mother Nature is the active controlling agent.

Yeah, that's what any number of hard determinists subscribe to alright. Only, as I note time and again, I am still drawn and quartered in regard to determinism. Right now, the arguments of the determinists make the most sense. Well, click, of course.

'Thought experiments' are NOT meant to just give you 'choices' ONLY. And, in the HOPE that by doing so would HELP in having one's ALREADY 'current' unverified and unsubstantiated BELIEF/S accepted and agreed by others.

'Thought experiments' are meant to MAKE 'you' THINK. Like mine does.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:06 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pm
I think Iambiguous' answer is : The response to the scenario and to your requests is the response of "Mother Nature". He doesn't have a response of his own. He just acts out and types of what Mother Nature makes him do.

Is there anyone else here who actually believes that this is the case? Though I sure as shit am not going to be wasting my time trying to straighten him out for the umpteenth time.

Instead, over and again I note how those on both sides of the issue are able to make reasonable arguments for and against free will.

The word 'reasonable' actually means and refers to be 'being able to reason', some thing. So, people are NOT 'able to' make 'reasoned arguments' for AND against 'one thing'. Some thing may APPEAR to be 'reason-able' to you human beings, HOWEVER, if you EVER come to an agreement and acceptance ON what the words and term 'free will' ACTUALLY MEAN and what they ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then what WILL BE FOUND, and SEEN, is there is ONLY One ACTUAL 'reasonable argument', which,OF COURSE, is/are the 'sound AND valid argument/s', ONLY.

Oh, and by the way, IF you people EVER do take 'the short cut' and DO come to AN AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE ON the definition of that 'free will' phrase, THEN the ONLY 'reasonable argument'/s', and thus the 'sound AND valid argument', which can NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, WILL APPEAR, and relatively VERY QUICKLY, almost IMMEDIATELY in Fact. BUT, you adult human beings have relatively NOT CHANGED AT ALL over the last few thousand or so years, so there is NO real evidence that you WOULD CHANGE and just come-together IN AGREEMENT, here.

Noax wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:10 pm And it's a reasonable argument from the compatibilists that I am most interested in.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pmIf I present the example of a boulder rolling down a hill towards a person :

The general interpretation of determinists is that the person will see the boulder and decide on some action based on this physical abilities, personality traits, understanding of physics, etc. He then moves left, right, takes cover, stays on the spot based on that decision.

No, the general interpretation among any number of determinists I have bumped into over the years online is that boulders and human beings are essentially interchangeable. Only the boulder is not likely to embody the psychological illusion of freedom that we have.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:39 pmI think in Iambiguous' version of deteminism, the person makes none of those decisions. Somehow Mother Nature decides what he will do and makes him do it.

The word 'somehow' does NOT provide ANY 'reasonable' reason to ACCEPT that so-called 'mother nature' decides, AT ALL.

Also, are you implying in "imabigious'" version, or 'world', so-called 'mother nature' decides who is killed, maimed, injured, or not?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:06 am IOW, in his version, the person is passive, lacking any control, and Mother Nature is the active controlling agent.

Yeah, that's what any number of hard determinists subscribe to alright. Only, as I note time and again, I am still drawn and quartered in regard to determinism. Right now, the arguments of the determinists make the most sense. Well, click, of course.

LOL ONLY 'sound AND valid arguments make ANY REAL sense. As, OBVIOUSLY, it is only 'sound AND valid arguments' that can NOT be REFUTED. And, ONLY that what IS IRREFUTABLE is what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, in Life.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 8:11 am Whether nature utterly compels us to think, feel, intuit, say and do all of things we think, feel, intuit, say and do, would seem to be the only question that counts.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:44 pmDespite reading many but nowhere near all posts in this topic, I cannot figure out what your view is. If you need an actual hard determinist, you can talk to me, for the reasons specified above. I know of no view where a person is utterly compelled to do something against his will, except perhaps the religious free-will model where a supernatural 'soul' or whatever you want to call it possesses what was otherwise a natural being and compels it to do what the soul wants and not what the being possessed wants. Sure, the soul ends up with free will (and thus responsibility for its choices), but the possessed being is no longer calling its own shots. Its will has been overridden.

Okay, given how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism "here and now", what would you say to Mary above in regard to an abortion that she was never able not to have.

And even though the compatibilists still hold her morally responsible, that is because [as some determinists point out] holding her morally responsible is something they were never able not to do themselves.

And, in a wholly determined universe, how would I not be compelled here as well?

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 3:44 pmBy your choices being a function of your own will. The word 'compel' again implies a choice made against one's will, which is not how it works.

Okay, then back to Schopenhauer's conjecture that, "a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:28 am Okay, given how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism "here and now", what would you say to Mary above in regard to an abortion that she was never able not to have.

I don't speak for compatibilists since what I've read of them they give no distinction between choice and free choice.
The lump the two in the same bucket, rendering the adjective 'free' meaningless.

I looked back 5 pages and found no mention of Mary, but OK, she gets an abortion, presumably her choice and not say compelled against her will by her parents of something.
Your wording is very biased given the spin of "never able not to have". She was 'able to not have' it if she didn't want it, but she did want it, so she chose what she wanted. Determinism is not violated here. I would say that under deterministic no choice is free, but that's using a supernatural definition of free choice, as is typically used by the dualists.

And even though the compatibilists still hold her morally responsible

Again, they make no distinction between moral responsibility and objective moral responsibility, so I don't speak for them. Yes, under determinism as I see it, Mary is definitely responsible for all her choices, just not objectively responsible since determinism is not compatible with objective morals. Free will is required only for the latter.

So if Mary somehow broke criminal law in getting this abortion, then she should bear the consequence of that crime. If it's legal but she is also a regular in pro-life rallies, then she's a hypocrite and rightfully should bear the scorn of both sides of the issue.

Okay, then back to Schopenhauer's conjecture that, "a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Not sure what that means. I want to quite smoking but I chose to light up anyway. Yes, there's definitely examples of wanting to will something else, but 'cannot' goes too far. Some do manage to quit, overcoming the conflicting will to have one more. Overcoming a vice is hard work. Not overcoming it entails inevitable responsibility, such as my brother in law where tobacco killed him before the alcohol could.

If the comment is meant as "one's will is determined", then yes, under naturalism, one's will is implemented by natural physics, an amazingly optimal system for making good choices.

Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.

To stave off an objection that might come into someone’s head here, we have to be careful in our language and pay attention to the way in which we use normative words such as ‘should’ or ‘ought’.

On the other hand, some will argue, normative words are essentially interchangeable with words rooted in the laws of nature...words that describe actual objective facts and relationships.

We sometimes use these words in a non-normative sense; but the meaning in those cases is quite different. It may signal an ignorance of causes, for example.

Not sure what this means. There are things we should or ought to do -- must do -- in our interactions with others because unless we do them as they should or ought to be done, we won't accomplish any particular goals or objectives.

For example, if your goal is to get rich playing the stock market, what should you do in order to make that goal a reality? On the other hand, there are those who will insist that no one ought to play the stock market because we ought to have a socialist economy instead.

Though, of course, some hard determinists will then argue that whatever we think we ought to do or not do here is in sync solely with brains that are in turn solely in sync with the laws of matter.

So suppose the jewellers have just returned your watch, after cleaning and servicing it. After a few days it stops: we might say that the watch should not or ought not to have broken down. What we mean here is that, given the servicing your watch has just been through, there should/ought to be no cause for it to stop working – while at the same time presumably not denying that there is a cause for the malfunction, we just don’t know what it is.

Here though [to me] this assumes we ought to assume in turn that we have some measure of free will. Something caused the watch to stop working. Who is responsible for that? And how can we hold them responsible as, say, a Libertarian might?

Though, sure -- click -- I may well be misunderstanding the author's point

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm I looked back 5 pages and found no mention of Mary, but OK, she gets an abortion, presumably her choice and not say compelled against her will by her parents of something.

On the other hand, any number of hard determinists are themselves compelled to argue that she was never really making a choice as, say, the libertarians might construe that.

What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it. Well, to any number of hard determinists, it means that others are no less compelled to hold her responsible.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm Your wording is very biased given the spin of "never able not to have". She was 'able to not have' it if she didn't want it, but she did want it, so she chose what she wanted.

On the other hand, back to this: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."

It just depends on how you fit her [and yourself] into this:

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.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pmDeterminism is not violated here. I would say that under deterministic no choice is free, but that's using a supernatural definition of free choice, as is typically used by the dualists.

Or, perhaps, what you say here is no less an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. As for the definitions used here, well, we'd have to run them by the folks who study the brain scientifically, wouldn't we. Eventually, anyway. Otherwise, all we are doing here is exchanging definitions and deductions up in the philosophical clouds.

And even though the compatibilists still hold her morally responsible that is because [as some determinists point out] holding her morally responsible is something they were never able not to do themselves.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pmAgain, they make no distinction between moral responsibility and objective moral responsibility, so I don't speak for them. Yes, under determinism as I see it, Mary is definitely responsible for all her choices, just not objectively responsible since determinism is not compatible with objective morals. Free will is required only for the latter.

Again, say the detrerminists, the distinction they make is but another necessary manifestion of the only possible reality. Just as you own assessment here is. Just as mine is. Only the determinists themselves are in the same boat we're all in...speculating about things here in "worlds of words".

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pmSo if Mary somehow broke criminal law in getting this abortion, then she should bear the consequence of that crime. If it's legal but she is also a regular in pro-life rallies, then she's a hypocrite and rightfully should bear the scorn of both sides of the issue.

Again, all of this unfolding in a world where she was never able to opt not to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells. And the assumption [mine "here and now"] being that if the hard determinists are correct, then EVERYthing that we think, feel, intuit, say and do we could never have opted not to.

Okay, then back to Schopenhauer's conjecture that, "a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pmNot sure what that means. I want to quite smoking but I chose to light up anyway. Yes, there's definitely examples of wanting to will something else, but 'cannot' goes too far.

And how on Earth would you go about actually demonstrating -- empirically, experientially, experimentally -- that this is, in fact, the objective truth? You think you chose to light up, but ultimately if the human brain does determine EVERYthing that you think and feel and intuit and say and do in regard to smoking, well, where's the part where autonomy comes in here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:58 am What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it.

The problem with the way you are phrasing it is that it is as if you exist in the world and are not part of the causes in that world. If someone wants to do something and does it, they are aligned with the action and compatibilists and determinsts will hold them responsible. And you probably do too. And would even if you were 100% sure determinism was the case.

You would react differently to the person who trips over wire running over the sidewalk and ends up stumbling up to you and pushing you.
And the bully who makes a beeline to you and pushes you with obvious joy in dominating someone.

We consider the first person one kind of person and the second one someone who is kinda fucked up. Most of us. If they did it at work, we'd probably advocate for them being fired. If we were the boss, we'd just fire them. The person who tripped, we most likely wouldn't.

Included in the inevitable causes in one person are a liking of pushing people.
Included in the person who tripped, there is no indication that they have that attitude.

Most people react to these people differently, including hard determinists.

And yes, I understand the Schoepenhaur quote and yes I understand that determinists, hard ones, would consider both actions inevitable.

But in practical terms, pretty much everyone, whatever their metaphysical beliefs on free will/determinism, will treat these people differently and do what can easily be described as holding the bully pusher responsible and not the tripper.

I'd be happy to test this out with any hard determinist. I'll follow them around pushing them and laughing and I'll bet they treat me as if I am acting immorally, despite me pointing out that my actions are inevitable.

So, you're pointing out as you have hundreds of times that hard deteminists would see both those men who pushed as performing actions that were inevitable, they will treat them differently.

One can of course argue over whether the phrase 'morally responsible' holds. But not once have I seen any acknowledgment that most people, most likely including yourself, will treat one of the pushers in ways that are aligned with a reaction to immoral behavior and the other in ways that don't view them as having transgressed.

In practical, down to earth terms - not up in the clouds - most people regardless of their position are going to react in ways very similar to how people making moral judgments act, based on how they view what leads to the same action.

I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that part. Or at least say 'No, if I believed in determinism 100%, I would treat both people the same, the one who tripped and the one who gets off on pushing me.'

Note: accepting that you would treat them differently does not mean you now accept that one is morally responsible. You might not at all be a compatibilist. But I think, perhaps, you can see where they are coming from. And it matters what the causes are and how much they are internal causes.

I throw a baseball and my hand slips and it hits you in the head.
I throw a baseball with the intention of hitting your head.

Set aside the categorization of these in terms of morals for a second. Pretty much everyone will treat the second baseball thrower very, very differently from the first baseball thrower.

How we label the act may differ from the compatibilist, but in practical terms there is aligned with treating them very differently BASED precisely on where the inevitable causes came from and whether the person was aligned with their act.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 6:28 am Okay, given how you understand determinism, free will and compatibilism "here and now", what would you say to Mary above in regard to an abortion that she was never able not to have.

I don't speak for compatibilists since what I've read of them they give no distinction between choice and free choice.

So, what is the distinction you give between 'choice' and 'free choice', exactly?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm The lump the two in the same bucket, rendering the adjective 'free' meaningless.

I looked back 5 pages and found no mention of Mary, but OK, she gets an abortion, presumably her choice and not say compelled against her will by her parents of something.
Your wording is very biased given the spin of "never able not to have". She was 'able to not have' it if she didn't want it, but she did want it, so she chose what she wanted. Determinism is not violated here. I would say that under deterministic no choice is free, but that's using a supernatural definition of free choice, as is typically used by the dualists.

And even though the compatibilists still hold her morally responsible

Again, they make no distinction between moral responsibility and objective moral responsibility, so I don't speak for them. Yes, under determinism as I see it, Mary is definitely responsible for all her choices, just not objectively responsible since determinism is not compatible with objective morals. Free will is required only for the latter.

So, when, to you, did "mary" or another human being become 'definitely responsible' for all of their choices, exactly?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm So if Mary somehow broke criminal law in getting this abortion, then she should bear the consequence of that crime.

Does it matter what country "mary" might be in at any given moment?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm If it's legal but she is also a regular in pro-life rallies, then she's a hypocrite and rightfully should bear the scorn of both sides of the issue.

Why should human beings be 'punished' if they have broken a 'criminal law' if the 'criminal law', itself, is Wrong?

Or, do you believe that EVERY 'criminal law' in EVERY country, at EVERY moment, is right?

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm

Okay, then back to Schopenhauer's conjecture that, "a man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Not sure what that means. I want to quite smoking but I chose to light up anyway. Yes, there's definitely examples of wanting to will something else, but 'cannot' goes too far. Some do manage to quit, overcoming the conflicting will to have one more. Overcoming a vice is hard work.

Only if one tells "them" 'self' that it is.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pm Not overcoming it entails inevitable responsibility, such as my brother in law where tobacco killed him before the alcohol could.

If the comment is meant as "one's will is determined", then yes, under naturalism, one's will is implemented by natural physics, an amazingly optimal system for making good choices.

But, under 'naturalism' 'free will' exists, as 'nature' 'determined' that it would and did happen.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:58 am What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it.

The problem with the way you are phrasing it is that it is as if you exist in the world and are not part of the causes in that world.

Why do you 'see' it this way.

To me, 'the way' "iambiguous" is phrasing 'it' is NOT that it is as if you exist in the world and are not part of the causes in that world, AT ALL.

To me "ambiguous" was just asking, 'What on earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for 'it'?'

Which the answer to that question is, What it means is that some are living in 'a world' where others dictate to them what they can and/or cannot do, and then also hold them accountable for what they do and/or do not do, essentially.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am If someone wants to do something and does it, they are aligned with the action and compatibilists and determinsts will hold them responsible. And you probably do too. And would even if you were 100% sure determinism was the case.

But, OBVIOUSLY and IRREFUTABLY 'determinsm' AND 'free will' are the case. This cannot be refuted.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am You would react differently to the person who trips over wire running over the sidewalk and ends up stumbling up to you and pushing you.
And the bully who makes a beeline to you and pushes you with obvious joy in dominating someone.

We consider the first person one kind of person and the second one someone who is kinda fucked up.

AND, it is, EXACTLY, this kind of response WHY 'the world', which was caused and created by adult human beings alone, was so-called 'fucked up', in the days when this was being written.

'Looking at', 'seeing', and 'considering' people DIFFERENT, in 'the way' like this one just provided ANOTHER example of, is EXACTLY WHY 'that world' was 'the way' that it was.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am Most of us. If they did it at work, we'd probably advocate for them being fired. If we were the boss, we'd just fire them. The person who tripped, we most likely wouldn't.

Included in the inevitable causes in one person are a liking of pushing people.
Included in the person who tripped, there is no indication that they have that attitude.

Most people react to these people differently, including hard determinists.

LOL AGAIN this one just does NOT STOP 'looking at', 'seeing', and 'judging' people in DIFFERENT WAYS, and under and with DIFFERENT LABELS.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am And yes, I understand the Schoepenhaur quote and yes I understand that determinists, hard ones, would consider both actions inevitable.

But in practical terms, pretty much everyone, whatever their metaphysical beliefs on free will/determinism, will treat these people differently and do what can easily be described as holding the bully pusher responsible and not the tripper.

So, the ones who MAKE and FORCE "mary" to have a baby can very easily, and very simply, be described as the 'bully pushers', here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am I'd be happy to test this out with any hard determinist. I'll follow them around pushing them and laughing and I'll bet they treat me as if I am acting immorally, despite me pointing out that my actions are inevitable.

Are you completely INCAPABLE of CHOOSING NOT TO push others around?

If yes, then REALLY?

But, if no, then you ALSO HAVE A CHOICE to STOP USING completely False terms like "hard determinists".

There are NO such things as "hard determinsits" NOR 'soft determinists'. What there are, EXACTLY, is VERY DIFFERENT.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am So, you're pointing out as you have hundreds of times that hard deteminists would see both those men who pushed as performing actions that were inevitable, they will treat them differently.

I wonder if this one is AWARE of just how much it has SIDE-TRACKED and DEFLECTED AWAY from the ACTUAL WORDS that it quoted above, here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am One can of course argue over whether the phrase 'morally responsible' holds.

LOL you adult human beings, here, have SHOWN that you can, of course, argue over just about ANY thing.

Which, LAUGHINGLY, is the VERY OPPOSITE of philosophizing and philosophical discussions are ALL ABOUT.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am But not once have I seen any acknowledgment that most people, most likely including yourself, will treat one of the pushers in ways that are aligned with a reaction to immoral behavior and the other in ways that don't view them as having transgressed.

In practical, down to earth terms - not up in the clouds - most people regardless of their position are going to react in ways very similar to how people making moral judgments act, based on how they view what leads to the same action.

I wonder if this is PRESUMING that what 'most people' do is the better or right way?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that part. Or at least say 'No, if I believed in determinism 100%, I would treat both people the same, the one who tripped and the one who gets off on pushing me.'

It is like this one has NOT YET worked out that it is BECAUSE OF 100% determism WHY ALL of what you human beings DO, was DONE, INCLUDING ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing being talked about, here.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am Note: accepting that you would treat them differently does not mean you now accept that one is morally responsible. You might not at all be a compatibilist. But I think, perhaps, you can see where they are coming from. And it matters what the causes are and how much they are internal causes.

I throw a baseball and my hand slips and it hits you in the head.
I throw a baseball with the intention of hitting your head.

Set aside the categorization of these in terms of morals for a second. Pretty much everyone will treat the second baseball thrower very, very differently from the first baseball thrower.

Yet here you adults are, STILL, punishing children, and others, for their accidents.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am How we label the act may differ from the compatibilist, but in practical terms there is aligned with treating them very differently BASED precisely on where the inevitable causes came from and whether the person was aligned with their act.

This is ANOTHER example of just how LOST and CONFUSED adult human beings WERE, BACK THEN.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 9:20 pm Why is Freedom So Important To Us?

I've wondered that myself. I chalk it up to 1) good sound bite, and 2) fallacious reasoning.
Ditto for the typical description of heaven being something I want.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:58 am What on Earth does it mean to live in a world where you are never able to opt not to abort but others still insist you are morally responsible for it.

I agree with this. I occasionally hear stories of such a thing occurring.

You continue to use 'compelled' despite it being entirely inappropriate. What's the point of rendering the viewpoint if you ignore me pointing out the mistakes? I'm not compelled to argue that one is responsible for their choices. I worked it out with logic.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 1:53 am I understand that determinists, hard ones, would consider both actions inevitable.

Inevitable. That word seems to fit better.

iambiguous wrote:All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy

A simple machine has autonomy. Under naturalism, humans are just a little more complex, but not fundamentally different.

when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter

I don't consider any matter to be living (or conscious). A living thing is composed of (or is a process involving) matter, sure, but not of living or conscious matter. That is more along the lines of property dualism. I suppose opinions differ on this point.

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well.

My, but you use that word a lot.

As for the definitions used here, well, we'd have to run them by the folks who study the brain scientifically, wouldn't we.

I don't think those folks care much about which definition of 'free will' is used. It doesn't seem relevant to their research, so they're not all likely to have the same opinions about it.

Noax wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2024 5:54 pmAgain, they make no distinction between moral responsibility and objective moral responsibility, so I don't speak for them. Yes, under determinism as I see it, Mary is definitely responsible for all her choices, just not objectively responsible since determinism is not compatible with objective morals. Free will is required only for the latter.

Again, say the detrerminists, the distinction they make is but another necessary manifestion of the only possible reality. Just as you own assessment here is. Just as mine is

You also often use the phrase 'only possible reality'. There are lots of possible realities. This is just one of them. Are those other ones just as real as this one? That's a whole different debate, unrelated to the issue of determinism or compatibilism. For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about this reality, whatever that is, not other possible ones.

You make it sound like only the determinists have only one possible evolution of a given state, but if they were right, then this is true of everybody, not just the determinists, and if they're wrong, then it isn't even true of the determinists. Either way, your assertion is fallacious.

Again, all of this unfolding in a world where she was never able to opt not to abort

Yet again, this is a strawman. The option was always there. She just didn't want it. Determinism doesn't remove options. It just means that your choices are implemented via processes that do not contain any components of randomness. This is a good thing, and you're attempting to spin it as a bad thing. Evolution would not have selected for deterministic methods (even if determinism wasn't the case) if it wasn't what worked best.

And how on Earth would you go about actually demonstrating -- empirically, experientially, experimentally -- that this is, in fact, the objective truth?

It's kind of anecdotal. Seriously, you don't know somebody who wants to quit a vice and yet chooses the vice? This isn't a demonstration of 'wiling what he wills' (and only sometimes successfully)?

If you're asking about proof of determinism, to do that, you'd have to falsify several philosophical interpretations of physics and say of time. Sans that falsification, it's a matter of opinion. The supernatural free will thing makes predictions that have never been observed, which is not a falsification (lack of sighting a black swan is not proof of lack of black swans), but it sure counts as evidence.

You think you chose to light up

That's a complex thing in itself. When it comes to choosing, there is more than one will going on, sort of a angel and devil on each shoulder, except it isn't between good and bad, but rather rational vs animal, and it's very obvious which one is boss.

For the record, I have never smoked nor taken a recreational drug, and only a tiny rate of alcohol use. My vices lie elsewhere, but they're no less of a problem.