compatibilism

[Atla]

And, again, what annoys some here about me is, in my view, that my own fractured and fragmented moral philosophy is starting to sink in. And I know full-well what the existential consequences of that can be.

As far as I can tell, no one here other than you has a fractured and fragmented philosophy. Or rather philosophies, fractured and fragmented implies plural I guess. Why would they be sinking in?

Autists can be really bad at handling ambiguity. Just look at Kant. When an autist does go (i) ambiguous, he might think that the world is ending. But actually a lot of non-autistic people have always been fairly good at handling some uncertainty, no big deal for them.

[phyllo]

So the first question suggests that you are interested in the scientific consensus. ("what the breakdown is?")

Sure. There are scientists among us and Libertarians among us. How many are both?

These libertarian scientists think that the science shows the libertarian free-will exists?

Let's see the science. I'm not aware of any such results.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:19 am
And the second question suggests that you don't care or that you will dismiss the answer. ("Besides, even if there is a consensus one way or another, how would it be demonstrated that this too is not but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?")

No, that's just a reminder that however the future unfolds, it's one thing to argue about it philosophically in a world of words and another thing altogether demonstrating that what you believe is objectively applicable to all of us. In other words, dismissing an argument or an answer is one thing, providing solid empirical, experiential and experimental proof to back it up, another thing altogether.

You have basically made it non-falsifiable because any and all results might be " another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality". IOW, it's impossible to get a valid result which demonstrates it one way or the other.

What basic facts pertaining to human interactions?
...
The actual facts regarding what?

The basic facts about compatibilism. I wrote it ... "a set of basic facts about compatibilism" and you quoted me.

But your reading comprehension is so poor that you can't figure out what I was referring to.

Two reasons for this come to mind.

This place, PN, is full of personal attacks.

You have a number of annoying personal posting habits.

Oh, so the attacks above leveled at me can be rationalized as actually being my fault.

"Rationalized" Right.

Because your annoying habits couldn't possibly be a valid reason for why this is happening.

Still, as I continue to contribute posts to this thread, please, by all means, tag along and note all of the nonsense I sustain. You know, if you do say so yourself.

Of course, I don't need your permission or invitation to do that.

BTW, your ideas about compatibilism are nonsense.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:19 am
That can't be your point because the conversation was about philosophy and science and The Gap and Rummy's Rules ... nothing was said about value judgements until you arbitrarily stuck it in. IOW, you just changed the subject from The Gap and Rummy's Rules to facts and value judgements.
Intentionally or you are not even aware of doing these things?

Simply unbelievable.

Over and again, I go in search of arguments that might allow me to understand how compatibilists have been able to go about reconciling determinism with moral responsibility. Value judgments and conflicting goods along with dasein and political economy have always been my main focus here. But: is that focus autonomous or autonomic?

So when you write a bunch of statements which do not include 'value judgements', 'conflicting goods', 'dasein', 'political economy' we should just interpret it as being about those subjects anyways.

If you wrote about penguins in Antarctica, it would really be about 'value judgements', etc.

No wonder you have so many communication problems.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 11:19 am
Am I right or am I wrong?

Again, on this thread, the point isn't in being right or wrong, but in being able to demonstrate that either way it's a reflection of free will.

Are you right or are you wrong of your own volition or not? What actual empirical evidence have you accumulated to pin that down.

If you can't even establish if my statements about compatibilism are right or wrong based on the history of writing about compatibilism, then how will you establish if a demonstration is right or wrong or if empirical evidence is right or wrong?

You don't even bother to get the basic facts about compatibilism straightened out.

[iambiguous]

They told you how, and it doesn't even require arguments. Has it occured to you in the last 50 years to look up the dictionary definition of compatibilism?

Now it's really annoying to me that the expression "free will" has two mutually exclusive meanings in use, but to an autist this could be downright inconceivable.

The incredible shrinking exchange!


Sigh...

It's not about looking up the definition of compatibilism in a dictionary so much as demonstrating one way or another whether in doing so we were able to opt freely of our own volition.

In other words, click.

Or should we go word for word for word and establish the precise dictionary definition for all of these words?

Besides, the hardcore determinists will note, we are only able to define words autonomically, sustaining but the psychological illusion of free will.

Naturally, you're just bullshitting all over the place. Demonstrating one way or another whether we are able to opt freely of our own volition, is irrelevant to dictionary definitions.

Then maybe -- click -- you should avoid reading what I post. Try that and get back to us.

[Atla]

The incredible shrinking exchange!


Sigh...

It's not about looking up the definition of compatibilism in a dictionary so much as demonstrating one way or another whether in doing so we were able to opt freely of our own volition.

In other words, click.

Or should we go word for word for word and establish the precise dictionary definition for all of these words?

Besides, the hardcore determinists will note, we are only able to define words autonomically, sustaining but the psychological illusion of free will.

Naturally, you're just bullshitting all over the place. Demonstrating one way or another whether we are able to opt freely of our own volition, is irrelevant to dictionary definitions.

Then maybe -- click -- you should avoid reading what I post. Try that and get back to us.

I can't get back to you if I don't read what you post. Besides I don't read your posts for philosophical value. They don't really have any.

[iambiguous]

Over and again, I go in search of arguments that might allow me to understand how compatibilists have been able to go about reconciling determinism with moral responsibility.

Why do you do that over and over again? You've read more arguments for compatibilism than most people. Maybe you read them and you just... disagree with compatibilism. That's allowed, you know? You can quit looking for more, you're allowed to move on to ideas you find more appealing.

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied. 

And, yeah, a lot of men and women will reject the points I raise because they don't find them appealing. The "how can you think like that!" folks who assume, what, that if an idea makes them feel too uncomfortable or disturbs them greatly, it can't possibly reflect the sort of Wisdom that philosophy is supposed to provide us?

Your obsession with an idea that you obviously don't like is kinda... insane. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane, right?

Come on -- click -- why on earth do philosophers choose to go out to the very end of the metaphysical limb? Because those of our ilk are ever and always fascinated with The Big Questions:

* Why does something exist instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
* What of determinism?
* What of the multiverse?
* What of God?
 
And yet after thousands of years, what have philosophers concluded regarding them?

You don't like compatibilism. That's okay. Reject it, get over it, move on. What's stopping you from moving on? Is it because you desperately want compatibilism to be true?

Again, it's not whether I reject it, get over it and move on. It's how philosophers, in using the tools at their disposal, would go about demonstrating definitively whether this was done either autonomously of my own volition or autonomically for whatever reason nature itself compels matter to behave.

In a No God universe, does nature possess a teleological component? Or does the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless existence best describe things?

[Flannel Jesus]

That sure is a lot of yapping.

Let me say it to you like a black woman. You don't have to keep reading about ideas you don't find compelling. Who da fuck wants to waste their time reading endlessly, year in and year out, about an idea they already know they hate? You don't like compatibilism bro. That's okay. Not everyone likes every idea. If you've read this much and haven't been convinced, reading another 3000 pages isn't going to convince you. Nothing will ever happen in this topic for you.

[iambiguous]

And, again, what annoys some here about me is, in my view, that my own fractured and fragmented moral philosophy is starting to sink in. And I know full-well what the existential consequences of that can be.

As far as I can tell, no one here other than you has a fractured and fragmented philosophy. Or rather philosophies, fractured and fragmented implies plural I guess. Why would they be sinking in?

No, not a fractured and fragmented philosophy. I am not an epistemic nihilist. The fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered components revolve instead around conflicting goods. I am a moral nihilist.

And for those here who are not, I ask them to note how their own moral philosophy manages to avoid that. In other words, given the points I note here in the OP -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989 -- how are their own moral convictions derived differently?

Autists can be really bad at handling ambiguity. Just look at Kant. When an autist does go (i) ambiguous, he might think that the world is ending. But actually a lot of non-autistic people have always been fairly good at handling some uncertainty, no big deal for them.

Of course, in reality any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

..."handle some uncertainty" by insisting that they and they alone have either invented or discovered the One True Path to Enlightenment.

Just ask them.

[iambiguous]

Note to others:

Please tell me what you think this...

That sure is a lot of yapping.

Let me say it to you like a black woman. You don't have to keep reading about ideas you don't find compelling. Who da fuck wants to waste their time reading endlessly, year in and year out, about an idea they already know they hate? You don't like compatibilism bro. That's okay. Not everyone likes every idea. If you've read this much and haven't been convinced, reading another 3000 pages isn't going to convince you. Nothing will ever happen in this topic for you.

...has to do with what I posted above:

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied. 

And, yeah, a lot of men and women will reject the points I raise because they don't find them appealing. The "how can you think like that!" folks who assume, what, that if an idea makes them feel too uncomfortable or disturbs them greatly, it can't possibly reflect the sort of Wisdom that philosophy is supposed to provide us?

Come on -- click -- why on earth do philosophers choose to go out to the very end of the metaphysical limb? Because those of our ilk are ever and always fascinated with The Big Questions:

* Why does something exist instead of nothing?
* Why this something and not something else?
* Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
* What of determinism?
* What of the multiverse?
* What of God?
 
And yet after thousands of years, what have philosophers concluded regarding them?

Again, it's not whether I reject it, get over it and move on. It's how philosophers, in using the tools at their disposal, would go about demonstrating definitively whether this was done either autonomously of my own volition or autonomically for whatever reason nature itself compels matter to behave.

In a No God universe, does nature possess a teleological component? Or does the "brute facticity" of an essentially meaningless existence best describe things?

[iambiguous]

 

 So the first question suggests that you are interested in the scientific consensus. ("what the breakdown is?")

Sure. There are scientists among us and Libertarians among us. How many are both?

These libertarian scientists think that the science shows the libertarian free-will exists?

Let's see the science. I'm not aware of any such results.

Again -- click -- I don't know how many scientists are Libertarians. But the argument of particular hardcore determinists concludes that whatever either scientists or Libertarians think they are showing [about anything] is merely an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality. It's not what their results are but the extent to which those like you are able to demonstrate that they arrived at them either autonomously or autonomically. 

"Besides, even if there is a consensus one way or another, how would it be demonstrated that this too is not but another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?"

And the second question suggests that you don't care or that you will dismiss the answer.

No, that's just a reminder that however the future unfolds, it's one thing to argue about it philosophically in a world of words and another thing altogether demonstrating that what you believe is objectively applicable to all of us. In other words, dismissing an argument or an answer is one thing, providing solid empirical, experiential and experimental proof to back it up, another thing altogether.

You have basically made it non-falsifiable because any and all results might be " another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality". IOW, it's impossible to get a valid result which demonstrates it one way or the other.

Yes, given what we still don't know about the limitations of the human brain, we don't even know if this is something the brain is even capable of grasping at all. Right? I mean, who really knows what's going on...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?...when we interact with others.  

What basic facts pertaining to human interactions? The actual facts regarding what?

The basic facts about compatibilism. I wrote it ... "a set of basic facts about compatibilism" and you quoted me.

But your reading comprehension is so poor that you can't figure out what I was referring to.

Okay, take those basic facts and note how you embody them in posting here. Where and when and how and why does the autonomic phyllo give way to the autonomous phyllo? 

Two reasons for this come to mind.
 
This place, PN, is full of personal attacks.

You have a number of annoying personal posting habits.

Oh, so the attacks above leveled at me can be rationalized as actually being my fault. And, again, what annoys some here about me is, in my view, that my own fractured and fragmented moral philosophy is starting to sink in. And I know full-well what the existential consequences of that can be.

"Rationalized"  :lol: Right.

Because your annoying habits couldn't possibly be a valid reason for why this is happening.

Note to others:

You'd think my "annoying habits" and all the other things they accuse me of would prompt the Stooges to just skip my posts. After all, I rarely read what they post unless it is in reference to me. 

Still, as I continue to contribute posts to this thread, please, by all means, tag along and note all of the nonsense I sustain. You know, if you do say so yourself.

Of course, I don't need your permission or invitation to do that.

Okay, how about if I challenge you to?  

BTW, your ideas about compatibilism are nonsense.

Again, click, if you do say so yourself. 

That can't be your point because the conversation was about philosophy and science and The Gap and Rummy's Rules ... nothing was said about value judgements until you arbitrarily stuck it in. IOW, you just changed the subject from The Gap and Rummy's Rules to facts and value judgements. Intentionally or you are not even aware of doing these things?

Simply unbelievable.

Over and again, I go in search of arguments that might allow me to understand how compatibilists have been able to go about reconciling determinism with moral responsibility. Value judgments and conflicting goods along with dasein and political economy have always been my main focus here. But: is that focus autonomous or autonomic?

    So when you write a bunch of statements which do not include 'value judgements', 'conflicting goods', 'dasein', 'political economy' we should just interpret it as being about those subjects anyways.

On this thread, it's not what we interpret [about anything] but the extent to which philosophers can provide us with an assessment that establishes once and for all that our interpretations reflect our own autonomy. Go ahead, give it a shot. 

If you wrote about penguins in Antarctica, it would really be about 'value judgements', etc.

Do you actually believe that? Penguins have brains just like we do. But their brains revolve almost entirely around instinct. What do penguins know of compatibilism? Human beings, on the other hand, are capable of broaching, assessessing, evaluating and passing judgments regarding it. But what they are not capable of [to the best of my current knowledge] is demonstrating empirically, experientially and/or experimentally that this does involve free will.

 Am I right or am I wrong?

Again, on this thread, the point isn't in being right or wrong, but in being able to demonstrate that either way it's a reflection of free will.

If you can't even establish if my statements about compatibilism are right or wrong based on the history of writing about compatibilism, then how will you establish if a demonstration is right or wrong or if empirical evidence is right or wrong?

Right, like examining the history of writing about compatibilism doesn't just bring us back around to the same antinomy here. Is the examination autonomous or autonomic?

 You don't even bother to get the basic facts about compatibilism straightened out.

More to point [mine] you won't/don't even connect the dots here between your conclusions regarding compatibilism and your conclusions regarding God and religion. 

This part:

I still have no understanding of how God and religion function for you here in this regard. Do you believe that you have a God-given soul? Is God the font you fall back on in regard to autonomy?

[Atla]

And, again, what annoys some here about me is, in my view, that my own fractured and fragmented moral philosophy is starting to sink in. And I know full-well what the existential consequences of that can be.

As far as I can tell, no one here other than you has a fractured and fragmented philosophy. Or rather philosophies, fractured and fragmented implies plural I guess. Why would they be sinking in?

No, not a fractured and fragmented philosophy. I am not an epistemic nihilist. The fractured and fragmented/drawn and quartered components revolve instead around conflicting goods. I am a moral nihilist.

And for those here who are not, I ask them to note how their own moral philosophy manages to avoid that. In other words, given the points I note here in the OP -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989 -- how are their own moral convictions derived differently?

Autists can be really bad at handling ambiguity. Just look at Kant. When an autist does go (i) ambiguous, he might think that the world is ending. But actually a lot of non-autistic people have always been fairly good at handling some uncertainty, no big deal for them.

Of course, in reality any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

..."handle some uncertainty" by insisting that they and they alone have either invented or discovered the One True Path to Enlightenment.

Just ask them.

It's still totally unclear what you mean. Are you broken because you can't find a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself, or are you broken because finding a stable, good moral philosophy for yourself is still not enough as the world goes to hell anyway?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Like God, 410 pages and counting of determinism, not a trace, not a still small voice, not a fossil, of free will. No need whatsoever to invoke it. Does God have it?

[Flannel Jesus]

Note to others:

Please tell me what you think this...

That sure is a lot of yapping.

Let me say it to you like a black woman. You don't have to keep reading about ideas you don't find compelling. Who da fuck wants to waste their time reading endlessly, year in and year out, about an idea they already know they hate? You don't like compatibilism bro. That's okay. Not everyone likes every idea. If you've read this much and haven't been convinced, reading another 3000 pages isn't going to convince you. Nothing will ever happen in this topic for you.

...has to do with what I posted above:

Everything. What you posted above is your justification for continuing to read more and more and more (but actually pay attention to what you're reading less and less and less) about an idea you already know you've rejected. There's no words that are going to shift you on compatibilism. Do you understand that? So why are you still endlessly reading about it?

Besides, what you said above is full of your usual meaningless tripe. I'd have to dissect every sentence to try to find just a little bit of meaning and I just ... don't want to haha. Like even the first sentence is poop:

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied.

What the fuck is all this shit? Why do you write so many words to say so little? The whole second half of the sentence, after 'pinning down', can just be shortened to: "pinning down whether humans have free will". You just write and write and write, so goofy. And you don't even explain why it's "crucial in regard to human interactions". You just say it like it's obvious. What's crucial about it? And if it is crucial, why does that justify your endless quest to understand compatilbism?

If it's crucial to pin down that shit... well, then you should look somewhere else, because you haven't pinned it down in your reading about compatibilism. So... go read something else. Go read something that has a chance of helping you pin it down, right? If it's crucial, put some REAL effort in.

[Flannel Jesus]

And, yeah, a lot of men and women will reject the points I raise because they don't find them appealing. The "how can you think like that!" folks who assume, what, that if an idea makes them feel too uncomfortable or disturbs them greatly, it can't possibly reflect the sort of Wisdom that philosophy is supposed to provide us?

This is funny iambiguous. You know why it's funny? BECAUSE YOU DON'T THINK ANYTHING YOU MORON.

You don't ever say what you think is true. Nobody even knows what you think. You're such a waffley little weasel that you don't even have thoughts. You weasel around your words so much, and most of your words are just various ways of saying "we aren't sure of things, we all have unique reasons for our beliefs", right? Dasein, Rummy's Rule - you've invented a whole vocabulary to talk about ignorance.

You think that makes people feel uncomfortable? Your ignorance disturbs people?

Maybe it does. Maybe your ignorance really does disturb people.

[Atla]

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied. 

Maybe an autist fixated on the free will issue can't see it, but a dozen other things are more crucial to most people in regard to human interactions. In fact I can't remember the last time I heard someone bring it up in an irl interaction.

[Flannel Jesus]

What could possibly be more crucial in regard to human interactions than pinning down whether the interactions themselves are of our own free will or, instead, merely reflect nature's automatons embodying only that which they [we] could never have not embodied. 

Maybe an autist fixated on the free will issue can't see it, but a dozen other things are more crucial to most people in regard to human interactions. In fact I can't remember the last time I heard someone bring it up in an irl interaction.

Atla truly gets it.