compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Determinism

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” Arthur Schopenhauer

Unless, of course, he's wrong.

“Life calls the tune, we dance.” John Galsworthy

The tango, I'm guessing.

“But recently I have learned from discussions with a variety of scientists and other non-philosophers...that they lean the other way: free will, in their view, is obviously incompatible with naturalism, with determinism, and very likely incoherent against any background, so they cheerfully insist that of course they don't have free will, couldn’t have free will, but so what? " Daniel C. Dennett

Then the part where some acknowledge we may or may not have free will, but we act as though we do.

". . . I know, Your Honor, that every atom of life in all this universe is bound up together. I know that a pebble cannot be thrown into the ocean without disturbing every drop of water in the sea. I know that every life is inextricably mixed and woven with every other life. I know that every influence, conscious and unconscious, acts and reacts on every living organism, and that no one can fix the blame. I know that all life is a series of infinite chances, which sometimes result one way and sometimes another. I have not the infinite wisdom that can fathom it, neither has any other human brain.” Clarence Darrow

Well -- click --  not counting all the objectivists here.

“Whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.” Max Ehrmann

As it must?

“We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes. The perfection that the human mind has been able to give to astronomy affords but a feeble outline of such an intelligence.” Pierre Simon de Laplace

You tell me.

[phyllo]

Quote the hardcore determinists who said "a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect".

[iambiguous]

Quote the hardcore determinists who said "a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect".

Again, we might call any number of things brilliant. But if what we call brilliant was never able to unfold in any other way than as it did? And in calling it brilliant, we were never able not to?

[Atla]

Another "incredible shrinking exchange"! 

Here's what I got running it by AI:

"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism". 

No, you didn't run it by an AI. That's HARD determinism, not HARDCORE determinism. Fucking hell. You've been at this determinism shit for decades and still can't even get something like this right.

Fucking hell?! Just because I used the word hardcore instead of hard?!! 

In other words, as I understand this [rightly or admittedly wrongly], everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do is inherently/necessarily a manifestation of the only possible reality.

So, sure, if you need to scrap the "core" part that may well be only because you were never able not to.

There was no mention of an "only possible reality" what the fuck. And that's NOT what the difference between hard vs soft determinism is about. I won't even read the rest of your comment I can't deal with this level of retardedness right now.

How about this...

Google "what's the difference between hard and soft determinism?".

You get this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what%27 ... e&ie=UTF-8

Lots and lots of different arguments coming to lots and lots of conflicting assessments and conclusions. Not unlike discussions and debates pertaining to all the other Big Questions. Or in regard to morality or politics or religion. 

I'm the first to acknowledge [as I did above] that I may well be wrong about my own assessment and conclusion. "Here and now" in other words. 

On the other hand, I'm not here calling others retarded just because they don't think like I do. 

He can't be helped plain and simple. Doesn't know what a definition is. Doesn't know what communication is. Doesn't know what a debate is. Doesn't care to look things up. Doesn't understand what he's doing wrong. Doesn't understand what others are doing and why. What is life without ever actually communicating with other human beings?

[phyllo]

Quote the hardcore determinists who said "a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect".

Again, we might call any number of things brilliant. But if what we call brilliant was never able to unfold in any other way than as it did? And in calling it brilliant, we were never able not to?

In other words, you do not know of any hardcore determinists who actually said it. This statement comes completely from your, let's say, unique understanding of determinism.

Then the part where you won't consider any feedback from the posters here.

Are you able to reflect on the situation yourself? Are you able to ask yourself "Why are determinists not saying these things which I think are so important?"
Are you able to research possible reasons for why this is the case?

[iambiguous]

Quote the hardcore determinists who said "a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect".

Again, we might call any number of things brilliant. But if what we call brilliant was never able to unfold in any other way than as it did? And in calling it brilliant, we were never able not to?

In other words, you do not know of any hardcore determinists who actually said it. This statement comes completely from your, let's say, unique understanding of determinism.

On the other hand, in what manner would I go about demonstrating how, whatever my own unique understanding of all this is, is either autonomous or autonomic?

Same for you and everyone else if the hardcore determinists are right. Only they are no less able to demonstrate what they believe either.

Again, however, given my own subjective/subjunctive philosophical prejudices.

Then the part where you won't consider any feedback from the posters here.

Unless, perhaps, what is really going on here are those who post things like this about me who are chagrined because my "feedback" does not coincide with their own assessments and conclusions.

Are you able to reflect on the situation yourself? Are you able to ask yourself "Why are determinists not saying these things which I think are so important?"
Are you able to research possible reasons for why this is the case?

More to the point, some will ask, is the research that any of us do done autonomously? Also, are our reflections [about anything] nothing more than the psychological illusion of free will?

And how come after thousands of years determinism continues to precipitate all manner of conflicting philosophical and scientific assessments.

[Atla]

He'll never be able to tell the difference between a definition and a conclusion.

[phyllo]

On the other hand, in what manner would I go about demonstrating how, whatever my own unique understanding of all this is, is either autonomous or autonomic?

Same for you and everyone else if the hardcore determinists are right. Only they are no less able to demonstrate what they believe either.

Well, the logic is pretty simple.

A decision is based on the state of the 'system', which is the external state of world and internal state of the person. The state of the person is the brain/mind/soul of the person.

If a decision does not does not come from state of the person, then it would not reflect the will of the person. It would not be a free decision, it would be a random decision.

So either you are making decisions which are determined by the state of 'things', or you are making random decisions, which are essentially out of your control.

If we were making random decisions, the world would be chaotic. It would be impossible to construct all the things that have been created ... planes, trains, automobiles, power grids, telephone grids, mathematics, medicine, etc.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, in what manner would I go about demonstrating how, whatever my own unique understanding of all this is, is either autonomous or autonomic?

Same for you and everyone else if the hardcore determinists are right. Only they are no less able to demonstrate what they believe either.

Well, the logic is pretty simple.

A decision is based on the state of the 'system', which is the external state of world and internal state of the person. The state of the person is the brain/mind/soul of the person.

If a decision does not does not come from state of the person, then it would not reflect the will of the person. It would not be a free decision, it would be a random decision.

On the other hand, how, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose? The behaviors, perhaps, that you..."choose" instead. Then the part where you either do include a God, the God, your God as the font of choice in providing you with a soul, autonomy, and all the other software God installs in the brains of mere mortals.

You tell me.

If we were making random decisions, the world would be chaotic. It would be impossible to construct all the things that have been created...planes, trains, automobiles, power grids, telephone grids, mathematics, medicine, etc.

Random decisions? As though, what, like "a bolt out of the blue", we post here? Or we say or do something so completely spontaneous and unexpected, we can't account for the reason why?  
In fact, those things can happen given any number of brain afflictions. Out of the blue a brain compels someone to do things that they do only because the brain does compel it.

The Charles Whitman Syndrome some call it.  

Though another example might be the case of Shane Tamura, the shooter in New York. He left a note telling us to "check my brain". He was afflicted with "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy" from playing football.

So either you are making decisions which are determined by the state of 'things', or you are making random decisions, which are essentially out of your control.

Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter. 

[phyllo]

Well, the logic is pretty simple.

A decision is based on the state of the 'system', which is the external state of world and internal state of the person. The state of the person is the brain/mind/soul of the person.

If a decision does not does not come from state of the person, then it would not reflect the will of the person. It would not be a free decision, it would be a random decision.

On the other hand, how, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose?

On the other hand?

This is like is I said "Triangles have three sides" and you ask "How, for all practical purposes, is this embodied in the actual behaviors that you...choose?"

It makes no sense as a reply.

Do you you have some problem with what I wrote? Agree? Disagree? What?

Random decisions?

Decisions not connected to the person's internal state.

So either you are making decisions which are determined by the state of 'things', or you are making random decisions, which are essentially out of your control.

Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter.

Random decisions wouldn't be determined by "the laws of matter". But they wouldn't represent free-will either.

All other decisions are determined by the "laws of matter" or the "laws of the immaterial" if you are not a physicalist.

[Flannel Jesus]

Random decisions?

Decisions not connected to the person's internal state.

So either you are making decisions which are determined by the state of 'things', or you are making random decisions, which are essentially out of your control.

Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter.

Random decisions wouldn't be determined by "the laws of matter". But they wouldn't represent free-will either.

All other decisions are determined by the "laws of matter" or the "laws of the immaterial" if you are not a physicalist.

He's never gonna be able to get what you're saying. That's why he says "unless..." followed by an example of something clearly within the bounds of what you're saying. He's functionally, philosophically illiterate.

His understanding is limited by his brain, naturally, which is of course operating "wholly in sync with the laws of nature" as he would phrase it. Unfortunately the laws of nature have created an iambiguous who just can't progress in this conversation.

[phyllo]

Expect nothing and you will never be disappointed.

The part that I find interesting at this point, is how he avoids addressing the contents of posts.

[Flannel Jesus]

Expect nothing and you will never be disappointed.

The part that I find interesting at this point, is how he avoids addressing the contents of posts.

I don't think it's that interesting. He's developed a couple strategies that allow him to avoid thinking about the words other people say, and he employs those strategies liberally. It's really easy, all you do is quote what someone else said and then respond with "on the other hand, <some entirely different shit>"

[phyllo]

Surely you must have found his response amusing, if not outright hilarious:

"Unless, perhaps, the hardcore determinists are right and everything that unfolds both in our heads and out in the world around us is entirely determined by the laws of matter. "

It's so completely disconnected from what I write. When have I ever said that everything is not "determined by the laws of matter"?

[Atla]

He might be motivated to improve if he could really grasp that other people exist. But he can't grasp that, these are all just echoes in his solipsistic mind.