compatibilism

[attofishpi]

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it.

What has morals got to do with it?

Is LIFE such a great gift that you are denying the existence of another human? <--- is that the moral issue here!!?

Ridiculous!! If that were the case, then BREED MAN, BREEEEEED!!!!

Let's bring as many humans into the world as our cocks can impregnate!!

[iambiguous]

Really? Nothing at all? How about we focus then on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639 

How was/is your own moral philosophy here derived from an entirely different trajectory...God, ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, otherwise?

Also, my aim here focuses on moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Ask them if they are drawn and quartered in regard to their own One True Path.  

As for my being an autist [often considered offensive by those who are not autistic] is that necessarily true simply because you believe that it is? Or is that just more Stooge Stuff?

It remains a mistery what is fractured and fragmented here.

Well -- click -- if you're lucky, you may well go to the grave and never experience it as I do. And if I'm lucky I'll bump into an argument that convinces me not to be. And, again, I'm only fractured and fragmented "here and now" in regard to conflicting goods. A moral nihilist, not an epistemic nihilist.

It's also a mistery why you think that I have an entirely different trajectory. For example I've encountered pure evil ("reptilian" psychopath) that was also innocent. I think that shit even goes infinitely beyond your abortion issue.

If some do believe that everything mere mortals in a No God world think, feel, intuit, say and/or do, they could never have not thought, felt, intuited, said and/or did given the only possible reality, why couldn't that also include what they post here?

No, what I do by and large is to note that until scientists accumulate considerably more knowledge regarding the human brain here, philosophers are generally reduced down to exploring compatibilism in a "world of words". 

And in a world construed by hardcore determinists to be the only possible reality, we are all in the same boat. Whether we endorse determinism, free will or compatibilism what difference does it make if we were never able to opt freely otherwise?

Don't be naive, even a perfect mapping of the brain may never fully decide the issue.

Tell that to the metaphysical objectivists here. And let me guess: you are the least naive among us regarding an understanding of the human brain "here and now"

And just out of curiosity, what is your "trajectory" in regard to objective morality? How is it not rooted existentially in dasein?  

...it's a mistery how this was a response to the mistery of why you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, which now you misteriously deny doing.

Uh, whatever "for all practical purposes", that means?

[attofishpi]

Ya missed a crucial component of your nonsense..that has continued in this nonsensical thread for how long?

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it.

What has morals got to do with it?

Is LIFE such a great gift that you are denying the existence of another human? <--- is that the moral issue here!!?

Ridiculous!! If that were the case, then BREED MAN, BREEEEEED!!!!

Let's bring as many humans into the world as our cocks can impregnate!!

[iambiguous]

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

She's being held responsible for *wanting* to abort Jane enough to act on that want.

Unless, perhaps, her brain compels her to want only that which she was never able not to want? And, sure, if some are able to convince themselves of this, I'm not here to argue that they are wrong. I'm only noting -- click -- that no one has been able to link me to an assessment among philosophers and psychologists and scientists that confirms what they believe.

And I'm the first to admit that I might well be wrong here.

If we're in a deterministic world, you can think of humans as decision-making-machines. Now, if a machine is regularly making mistakes, what do you do? You either change it or throw it away.

On the other hand, if we are but nature's very own automatons, who or what would be around to change us? An omnipotent God, sure, if he does exist. Or do the Pantheists among us have their own rendition of this pertaining to the entire universe itself.

That's... kinda what holding something responsible *means*. Changing it is equivalent to rehabilitating a person, throwing it away is equivalent to locking it up in prison - or of course some mixture of the two options is viable.

Unless, perhaps, the definitions and the meanings given to words reflect but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality unfolding in the only possible way.

You guy why you'd want to change or throw away a malfunctioning machine, right? Does that make sense?

Nothing does not make sense if we are all compelled to post what we do here. 

[Atla]

Really? Nothing at all? How about we focus then on this one: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639 

How was/is your own moral philosophy here derived from an entirely different trajectory...God, ideology, deontology, biological imperatives, otherwise?

Also, my aim here focuses on moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Ask them if they are drawn and quartered in regard to their own One True Path.  

As for my being an autist [often considered offensive by those who are not autistic] is that necessarily true simply because you believe that it is? Or is that just more Stooge Stuff?

It remains a mistery what is fractured and fragmented here.

Well -- click -- if you're lucky, you may well go to the grave and never experience it as I do. And if I'm lucky I'll bump into an argument that convinces me not to be. And, again, I'm only fractured and fragmented "here and now" in regard to conflicting goods. A moral nihilist, not an epistemic nihilist.

It's also a mistery why you think that I have an entirely different trajectory. For example I've encountered pure evil ("reptilian" psychopath) that was also innocent. I think that shit even goes infinitely beyond your abortion issue.

If some do believe that everything mere mortals in a No God world think, feel, intuit, say and/or do, they could never have not thought, felt, intuited, said and/or did given the only possible reality, why couldn't that also include what they post here?

No, what I do by and large is to note that until scientists accumulate considerably more knowledge regarding the human brain here, philosophers are generally reduced down to exploring compatibilism in a "world of words". 

And in a world construed by hardcore determinists to be the only possible reality, we are all in the same boat. Whether we endorse determinism, free will or compatibilism what difference does it make if we were never able to opt freely otherwise?

Don't be naive, even a perfect mapping of the brain may never fully decide the issue.

Tell that to the metaphysical objectivists here. And let me guess: you are the least naive among us regarding an understanding of the human brain "here and now"

And just out of curiosity, what is your "trajectory" in regard to objective morality? How is it not rooted existentially in dasein?  

...it's a mistery how this was a response to the mistery of why you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, which now you misteriously deny doing.

Uh, whatever "for all practical purposes", that means?

It's like he has a few dozen or hundred prepared responses that he uses for everything, and he throws up a dice which one he'll say next, maybe some words he reads influence the dice throw. Maybe this is how it looks when someone has never communicated in his life and never will. Must be weird going through life like that. Well this was interesting, I think my hypothesis about him stands.

[Flannel Jesus]

The thing that puzzles me is how, in a determined world where Mary can never not abort Jane, she is still said to be morally responsible for it. After all, how many here would agree to being held morally responsible for something they were never able not to do?

She's being held responsible for *wanting* to abort Jane enough to act on that want.

Unless, perhaps, her brain compels her to want only that which she was never able not to want? And, sure, if some are able to convince themselves of this, I'm not here to argue that they are wrong. I'm only noting -- click -- that no one has been able to link me to an assessment among philosophers and psychologists and scientists that confirms what they believe.

And I'm the first to admit that I might well be wrong here.

If we're in a deterministic world, you can think of humans as decision-making-machines. Now, if a machine is regularly making mistakes, what do you do? You either change it or throw it away.

On the other hand, if we are but nature's very own automatons, who or what would be around to change us? An omnipotent God, sure, if he does exist. Or do the Pantheists among us have their own rendition of this pertaining to the entire universe itself.

That's... kinda what holding something responsible *means*. Changing it is equivalent to rehabilitating a person, throwing it away is equivalent to locking it up in prison - or of course some mixture of the two options is viable.

Unless, perhaps, the definitions and the meanings given to words reflect but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality unfolding in the only possible way.

You guy why you'd want to change or throw away a malfunctioning machine, right? Does that make sense?

Nothing does not make sense if we are all compelled to post what we do here. 

This response is classic iambiguous obnoxiousness. I'm literally trying to answer you and instead of listening to my answer you say "unless. Unless. Unless."

Don't unless you fucking retard. Read the words for what they are, don't unless. Unless means you get to not think about what was written you illiterate piece of shit. Think about what was written and respond to it without any dumbass "unless"

When someone gives you an answer, you don't just ignore it with "unless", Jesus. You wonder why everyone hates you.

This is why you're on a neverending search to understand compatibilism. Any time sometime gives you a point of view, instead of trying to understand it you give yourself permission to think about something else by saying "unless <some entirely other thing>". You do it with human beings speaking to you, but you also do it to the books and articles you read. You're never going to understand fucking ANYTHING by "unless"ing your way out of actually thinking about what was written.

I can just imagine 7 year old you being told by your teacher, "multiplying two numbers is like adding the number to itself that many times", and instead of actually trying to understand that, you say "unless that's really only the manifestation of the only possibile reality". You fucking idiot.

[iambiguous]

It remains a mistery what is fractured and fragmented here.

Well -- click -- if you're lucky, you may well go to the grave and never experience it as I do. And if I'm lucky I'll bump into an argument that convinces me not to be. And, again, I'm only fractured and fragmented "here and now" in regard to conflicting goods. A moral nihilist, not an epistemic nihilist.

It's also a mistery why you think that I have an entirely different trajectory. For example I've encountered pure evil ("reptilian" psychopath) that was also innocent. I think that shit even goes infinitely beyond your abortion issue.

If some do believe that everything mere mortals in a No God world think, feel, intuit, say and/or do, they could never have not thought, felt, intuited, said and/or did given the only possible reality, why couldn't that also include what they post here?

No, what I do by and large is to note that until scientists accumulate considerably more knowledge regarding the human brain here, philosophers are generally reduced down to exploring compatibilism in a "world of words". 

And in a world construed by hardcore determinists to be the only possible reality, we are all in the same boat. Whether we endorse determinism, free will or compatibilism what difference does it make if we were never able to opt freely otherwise?

Don't be naive, even a perfect mapping of the brain may never fully decide the issue.

Tell that to the metaphysical objectivists here. And let me guess: you are the least naive among us regarding an understanding of the human brain "here and now"

And just out of curiosity, what is your "trajectory" in regard to objective morality? How is it not rooted existentially in dasein?  

...it's a mistery how this was a response to the mistery of why you ask objectivists to provide evidence for their real autonomy, which now you misteriously deny doing.

Uh, whatever "for all practical purposes", that means?

It's like he has a few dozen or hundred prepared responses that he uses for everything, and he throws up a dice which one he'll say next, maybe some words he reads influence the dice throw. Maybe this is how it looks when someone has never communicated in his life and never will. Must be weird going through life like that. Well this was interesting, I think my hypothesis about him stands.

Click. Click. Click.
:
Three's a charm?

Typical "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" Stooge Stuff.

He/she responds to none of the points I raised substantively. Instead, I become the issue. He/she calls me a "moron" above. And yet, again, isn't it rather ridiculous to keep reading and responding to the posts of someone whose intelligence you have such contempt for?

[Atla]

Well -- click -- if you're lucky, you may well go to the grave and never experience it as I do. And if I'm lucky I'll bump into an argument that convinces me not to be. And, again, I'm only fractured and fragmented "here and now" in regard to conflicting goods. A moral nihilist, not an epistemic nihilist.



If some do believe that everything mere mortals in a No God world think, feel, intuit, say and/or do, they could never have not thought, felt, intuited, said and/or did given the only possible reality, why couldn't that also include what they post here?





Tell that to the metaphysical objectivists here. And let me guess: you are the least naive among us regarding an understanding of the human brain "here and now"

And just out of curiosity, what is your "trajectory" in regard to objective morality? How is it not rooted existentially in dasein?  



Uh, whatever "for all practical purposes", that means?

It's like he has a few dozen or hundred prepared responses that he uses for everything, and he throws up a dice which one he'll say next, maybe some words he reads influence the dice throw. Maybe this is how it looks when someone has never communicated in his life and never will. Must be weird going through life like that. Well this was interesting, I think my hypothesis about him stands.

Click. Click. Click.
:
Three's a charm?

Typical "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" Stooge Stuff.

He/she responds to none of the points I raised substantively. Instead, I become the issue. He/she calls me a "moron" above. And yet, again, isn't it rather ridiculous to keep reading and responding to the posts of someone whose intelligence you have such contempt for?

Again a random non-response. I already told him 20 times that he IS the issue.

The thing with these self-obsessed weirdos is that you can very clearly tell them that your interest is merely psychological (because they can never figure this out on their own, even though it's blindingly obvious), and they still won't be able to believe you.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Well -- click -- if you're lucky, you may well go to the grave and never experience it as I do. And if I'm lucky I'll bump into an argument that convinces me not to be. And, again, I'm only fractured and fragmented "here and now" in regard to conflicting goods. A moral nihilist, not an epistemic nihilist.



If some do believe that everything mere mortals in a No God world think, feel, intuit, say and/or do, they could never have not thought, felt, intuited, said and/or did given the only possible reality, why couldn't that also include what they post here?





Tell that to the metaphysical objectivists here. And let me guess: you are the least naive among us regarding an understanding of the human brain "here and now"

And just out of curiosity, what is your "trajectory" in regard to objective morality? How is it not rooted existentially in dasein?  



Uh, whatever "for all practical purposes", that means?

It's like he has a few dozen or hundred prepared responses that he uses for everything, and he throws up a dice which one he'll say next, maybe some words he reads influence the dice throw. Maybe this is how it looks when someone has never communicated in his life and never will. Must be weird going through life like that. Well this was interesting, I think my hypothesis about him stands.

Click. Click. Click.
:
Three's a charm?

Typical "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" Stooge Stuff.

He/she responds to none of the points I raised substantively. Instead, I become the issue. He/she calls me a "moron" above. And yet, again, isn't it rather ridiculous to keep reading and responding to the posts of someone whose intelligence you have such contempt for?

The Beast!!!

[iambiguous]

She's being held responsible for *wanting* to abort Jane enough to act on that want.

Unless, perhaps, her brain compels her to want only that which she was never able not to want? And, sure, if some are able to convince themselves of this, I'm not here to argue that they are wrong. I'm only noting -- click -- that no one has been able to link me to an assessment among philosophers and psychologists and scientists that confirms what they believe.

And I'm the first to admit that I might well be wrong here.

If we're in a deterministic world, you can think of humans as decision-making-machines. Now, if a machine is regularly making mistakes, what do you do? You either change it or throw it away.

On the other hand, if we are but nature's very own automatons, who or what would be around to change us? An omnipotent God, sure, if he does exist. Or do the Pantheists among us have their own rendition of this pertaining to the entire universe itself.

That's... kinda what holding something responsible *means*. Changing it is equivalent to rehabilitating a person, throwing it away is equivalent to locking it up in prison - or of course some mixture of the two options is viable.

Unless, perhaps, the definitions and the meanings given to words reflect but one more inherent manifestation of the only possible reality unfolding in the only possible way.

You guy why you'd want to change or throw away a malfunctioning machine, right? Does that make sense?

Nothing does not make sense if we are all compelled to post what we do here. 

This response is classic iambiguous obnoxiousness. I'm literally trying to answer you and instead of listening to my answer you say "unless. Unless. Unless."

Whatever that means? 

Don't unless you fucking retard. Read the words for what they are, don't unless. Unless means you get to not think about what was written you illiterate piece of shit. Think about what was written and respond to it without any dumbass "unless"

Unless, perhaps, you're wrong?

When someone gives you an answer, you don't just ignore it with "unless", Jesus. You wonder why everyone hates you.

Plenty of objectivists have come to "hate" me over the years. Hell, I still recall all those years ago how infuriated I would become when my own objectivism -- both God and No God -- was challenged effectively. And, in regard to your constant insults and disparaging calumnies, the only reason that makes any sense [to me] is that on some level you recognize just how threatening my points are to your own considerably less drawn and quartered philosophy. 

Then you really start to get all worked up about me...

This is why you're on a neverending search to understand compatibilism. Any time sometime gives you a point of view, instead of trying to understand it you give yourself permission to think about something else by saying "unless <some entirely other thing>". You do it with human beings speaking to you, but you also do it to the books and articles you read. You're never going to understand fucking ANYTHING by "unless"ing your way out of actually thinking about what was written.

I can just imagine 7 year old you being told by your teacher, "multiplying two numbers is like adding the number to itself that many times", and instead of actually trying to understand that, you say "unless that's really only the manifestation of the only possibile reality". You fucking idiot.

How does it not embarrass you to post feckless outbursts like this? When all you have to do to get me out of your head is to stop reading my posts.

[Atla]

.

the only reason that makes any sense [to me] is that on some level you recognize just how threatening my points are to your

Total and genuine blindness. And his points aren't even on-topic, after 400 pages he still hasn't even addressed compatibilism, he doesn't even know what it is.

[iambiguous]

.

the only reason that makes any sense [to me] is that on some level you recognize just how threatening my points are to your

Total and genuine blindness. And his points aren't even on-topic, after 400 pages he still hasn't even addressed compatibilism, he doesn't even know what it is.

Again, all I can do is to extrapolate from nearly 25 years of dealing with declamatory mentalities like this online. By and large, the more they make it all about me the more I recognize it is all about them. Bit by bit, crack by crack, they react to me with increasing exasperation. What if my own drawn and quartered moral philosophy begins to sink in all the more?

What's at stake here for the objectivists, in my view, is their precious "my way or the highway" One True Path. They are used to coming into places like this and doing battle with those who completely share in their conviction that there really is One True Path. But it's their own of course. Whereas -- click -- I suggest that in a No God universe, there is no One True Path. There are only moral, political and spiritual prejudices derived existentially from particular historical and cultural contexts and then sustained given one or another rendition of this: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

The psychology of objectivism.

[Flannel Jesus]

How does it not embarrass you to post endless reviews of literature on compatibilism and still not understand it after years and years?

"Unless" and "on the other hand" are the reasons you don't understand it. Every time you read something, you immediately start looking for permission to think of something else.

Maybe if you gave yourself permission to think about compatibilism, you'd understand it by now.

[Flannel Jesus]

.

the only reason that makes any sense [to me] is that on some level you recognize just how threatening my points are to your

Total and genuine blindness. And his points aren't even on-topic, after 400 pages he still hasn't even addressed compatibilism, he doesn't even know what it is.

I'm genuinely baffled at what his points are. I know if I asked him, he still wouldn't be able to make it clear. Instead of saying what his points are, he'd ramble on about what his points "revolve around", which obviously doesn't do anything for anyone.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

There's only one way out of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby# ... r_Baby.jpg, but 400 pages says it can't be taken.

HELP!!!!