My question was “Do you or do you not understand that this thread is about a book and not about determinism in general?”
You either understand that or you do not. What made you understand (or not understand) that particular thing has nothing to do with my question, right?
I’ll explain why Mary can be held morally responsible in a wholly deterministic world later on, though I’m pretty sure that you’ve been given a similar explanation in the past and that you weren’t satisfied with it. I’ll put it forward anyways, and if it doesn’t satisfy you, perhaps you could explain exactly what’s unsatisfying about it and then we could take it from there. Though I’m not hoping for more than yet another response that is barely related to what is being said.
Yeah, I would say that’s pretty much it.
Sculptor and Karpal Tunnel / Moreno are two entirely different characters. They barely have anything in common. Sculptor is in most likelihood Lev Muishkin. I don’t know if you remember him. He used to have a pictore of Iggy Pop as his avatar. (I’m not a fan of Iggy Pop, by the way.)
How do you know that? Have you understood how Hume uses the term “free will”?
Hume was a compatibilist. He thought that the universe is deterministic; at the same time, he thought that people (at least some of them) have free will. Thus, he completely agrees that “his own thinking and feeling was […] just another inherenet manifestation of the laws of matter”, he just doesn’t agree that his belief that he has a free will is an illusion.
To be morally responsible for some crime merely means that you made a moral decision free of your own will (i.e. you weren’t forced by others to make it) to commit some crime. And knowing whether someone is morally responsible for a crime or not is relevant because it can tell us how dangerous that someone is. And knowing that someone is dangerous is relevant becase if we know that someone is dagnerous then we might want to restrict his behavior in an effort to prevent future crimes.
Hume is basically saying that the concept of free will you give so much importance to (the “contra-casual” concept) is completely unimportant as far as moral responsibility is concerned.
Is anyone interested in this discovery? In all this time I was never able to show how responsibility is increased when we know IN ADVANCE we will not be blamed (the corollary to no free will) for anything we do. I hope people come forward even if they’re just curious but they will have to put aside any preconceived ideas regarding free will or compatibilism, long enough to hear what the author has to say. I do not want to waste my time if there’s no interest. Iambiguous needs to back off. He has stated his position ad nauseam. Thanks in advance.
Explain to him how the answer that I provided was the only answer that I was ever able to provide given the manner in which you have compelled me in turn to understand determinism here and now. He seems ever intent on turning our exchange into the sort of discussion that the free will advocates insist is the case.
In other words, without “flicking the switch” to the assumption of free will as I do.
Flicking the switch now to the assumption that we both do possess some measure of free will. Mine rooted in dasein, yours rooted in…what exactly?
I could not care less about what motivated peacegirl to start the thread. She entitled it Determinism and my opinions about that have evolved over the years from a fierce advocate of free will to a far more profoundly problematic proponent of determinism. In other words, encompassed in my own wild ass guesses about the whole centuries old trajectory of an antinomy that philosophers down though the ages have been grappling with. And now in the modern world the role that science plays in grappling with it in a far more empirical, experiential, experimental manner.
Actually, given free will, I’m far more interested in exploring the extent to which you believe that your explanation really does reflect either the optimal or the only rational understanding of human interactions in the is/ought world. Thus, despite any new experiences or new relationships or access to new information and knowledge that you might have, you are convinced that here and now your explanation is, well, the explanation.
Thus to the extent that I or others are not satisfied with your explanation is the extent to which we refuse to grasp what is in fact true about Mary’s moral responsibility in a determined world.
In other words:
Classic objectivism. But if it’s only “pretty much it” how do you fill in the gap?
Maybe. Maybe even probably. But, as with KT, whether in regard to religion or politics, he clearly seems obsessed [to me] with holding in contempt those who refuse to think exactly like he does. An objectivist. If only as “I” understand it.
Come on, given free will as I understand it, get real. If Hume or anyone was able [is able] to fully demonstrate that we either do or do not have free will, how would that not be brought to our attention over and over and over again. And not just here but everywhere.
Or, sure, if it comes down to how Hume used the expression “free will” as an intellectual contraption, how he defined its meaning “up in the didactic clouds”, the discussions can go on and on and on and never once make references to things like Mary’s abortion.
Okay, but how is that an adequate response to my question? How did he go about demonstrating that anything that he thought about this distinction was not in turn the only thing that he ever could have thought? Where’s his evidentiary proof here beyond what he came to conclude about it “in his head”?
Where’s yours?
All I can say [again] is that given my own understanding of determinism, this makes sense only in the sense that you were never able to not post it then and there and I was never able to not read it here and now. Anymore than we were free as, say, the Libertarians insist we are to understand it of our own volition.
If I think I “made a moral decision free of my own will to commit some crime” only because my brain is hardwired by nature not to have enabled me to think otherwise the crime was still never not going to be committed.
You always want to place the focus here on what others might force us to do while I place the focus on how the laws of nature compel both us and others to do only what can ever possibly unfold in the only possible reality.
Same with the part that revolves around knowing how dangerous someone is and restricting his behavior. Nothing is not compelled by the laws of nature given my own understanding of it. But my own understanding of it can never be more than a wild ass guess given “the gap” I note above re “I” and “all there is”.
Nothing can be delusional if everything that Hume thought, felt, said and did…much like everything that you and I think, feel, say and do…was the embodiment of the only possible reality.
It’s not whether the arguments of the compatibilists here are more or less reasonable than mine but whether we can establish ontologically – teleologically? – whether there was ever the possibility of our being able to “for all practical purposes” opt to choose different arguments instead.
But then, for you, compelled or not, it’s straight back up into your own objectivist cloud:
First you compel peacegirl to abandon this thread for the New Discovery thread. Nothing on that thread now for days. So, what, you compel her to come back here?
He didn’t compel me to abandon this thread. I was the one who moved his post to New Discovery because I couldn’t make headway here, but I can’t there either.
You still didn’t answer my questions. Will you continue to evade them? 1. Can you accept (without resorting to your standard response) that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction even if it’s embedded in the laws of matter? 2. Can you accept that no one can make you do what you make up your mind not to do. For example, if you were told by a murderer that if you talk and tell the authorities what you witnessed, he will kill your family, could the laws of matter (as you put it) force you to talk against your will which, in this case, would be a death sentence for your family? Could anybody or anything force you to talk if you were determined to keep your family safe by not saying a word? Please answer these two questions succinctly.
My intent was to make it clear – not strictly to you – that you did not answer my question and that you merely used it as a launch pad to say the stuff that you usually say. That said, I am fully aware of the possibility that you have no capacity to understand that you did not answer my question. I just don’t want to jump to that conclusion right off the bat. I don’t have much respect for the “No matter what you do, you can’t help him” mentality. To me that appears to be excessively defensive. My own approach is to keep trying while making sure that my expectations aren’t too high and that I don’t put more effort than my time allows.
Other people do and should care if they want their own threads to be respected by other members.
I think peacegirl made a mistake when she decided to call this thread “Determinism”. It’s a misleading title but I can understand why she chose it (before she started this thread, she already had a number of threads dedicated to the book, one of which was called “Decline and Fall of All Evil”.) Still, that doesn’t mean that one should simply ignore the opening post. It’s pretty clear that, despite its title, this thread isn’t about determinism in general but Lessans’s book “Decline and Fall of All Evil”.
And what exactly makes you think that? That’s pretty much like saying “No person can be physically short if everything is determined by the laws of nature”. You can be determined to be short, you can be determined to be physically unattractive, you can be determined to be unintelligent, you can be determined to be delusional and so on. Again, it looks like you have what Unabomber calls “feelings of inferiority”. It’s like you’re trying to get rid of those by coming up with a theory that nothing can be inferior (because the universe is determined and whatnot.) “Delusion” is simply a false belief. “Being delusional” simply means “having false beliefs”. You don’t think that a delusional organism can be determined in the same exact way that an obese person can?
I take it that what you mean by “fully demonstrate” is “convince absolute majority”. Well, perhaps he didn’t succeed at that. But that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. And the best way to check whether he’s right or wrong is to sit down and analyze his arguments instead of waiting for everyone to accept that he’s right. But you don’t want to do that, don’t you? Too technical. Instead, you want him to convince everyone (you want to see everyone nodding in agreement) before he can assert that he’s right. That’s a pretty strange requirement.
Your post assumed that Hume was an incompatibilist. I merely tried to correct that.
Proof is a relative thing. What’s proof to one is not necessarily proof to another. I can give you any number of proofs that can convince any number of people but that won’t convince you simply because you have a different mind. So in order to convince you, I have to come up with a special kind of proof. And that’s not an easy thing to do – especially if we take into account how difficult it is to cooperate with you. I am pretty sure any number of proofs were thrown your way in the past and they all failed at their task.
You are placing focus on the wrong things. Moral responsibility has nothing to do with “contra-casual”, “libertarian” or “incompatibilist” concept of free will (which is precisely what you’re placing your focus on.) That concept is completely irrelevant – a mere distraction.
If someone thinks that a dwarf is a tall person, then that thought was put in his head by nature. He can’t help thinking it. He has no control over the thought.
The consequence is that everything is basically meaningless. There is nothing right/wrong, rational/irrational, delusional/non-delusional, etc.
All interactions are forced by the laws of nature. All reactions are forced by the laws of nature.
If you think that’s crazy, then that reaction has been ‘dumped’ on you by nature. It’s the only reaction you could have … it’s “the embodiment of the only possible reality”.
All that you are saying is true after the fact, but before the fact you still have a choice. You are not a puppet where you have no say. Actually what happens before a decision is key. After all we are basing our choices on what we believe is the best one even if it doesn’t pan out. Can you deny that your choice is forced by something external without your consent? It can’t be done.
The idea that a belief cannot be delusional/non-delusional if everything is determined by the laws of nature is precisely what I responded to, right? My response was that whether or not any given belief is delusional has nothing to do with its origin and everything to do with whether or not it matches the portion of reality it is attempting to describe. It’s similar to how determining whether someone is obese or not merely consists in looking at someone’s physical body in the present and comparing it to the definition of the word “obese” without any regard for what made that person obese.
Something similar can be said about the idea that a decision cannot be rational/irrational or right/wrong if everything is determined by the laws of nature.
You responded as if it’s possible to say that someone is short/tall or thin/obese by matching some portion of reality.
But that’s not his argument. He’s saying that the idea that someone is obese is placed in your head by the laws of nature. It’s independent of some sort of reference to reality in regard to weight or size.
If I think that you are wrong, then it’s because the laws of nature made me think that you are wrong.
Who or what put the idea in your head is irrelevant. The issue of concern is that it is there. Rewards and punishments are based on what is in your head - not how it got there (blame-shifting) - except in politics - which tells you that it is an issue of lying with purpose.
Again, my assumption that your assumption is such that when you speak of intent here you speak of it as the free will advocates would. Whereas my assumption about my own assumption is that it’s just another wild ass guess that, given determinism as I understand it, it was never your intent at all, but only the psychological illusion that you could have freely opted to “intend” something else instead. Or “intend” as the compatibilists put it.
Note to nature:
How about if you compel me to say something else instead.
Then just more of the same: Magnus, the libertarian…
Look, given some actual volition on your part, if you are going continue to make points like this please make them in refence to Mary’s abortion. Or to some other interactions in which having or not having the real deal free will makes all the difference in the world when it comes to holding others responsible for what given your own understanding of determinism they “choose”.
That’s the part that eludes me. How compatibilists hold Mary morally responsible for something that her brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter as I understand it, compelled her to do.
To me this as well is just more in sync with Magnus the libertarian. Not only what we do but what we should do…all within our command as the free will advocates argue.
Right, like the author’s own views in the book [compelled or not] have absolutely nothing to do with the arguments posed down through the ages [by theologians, philosophers and scientists] about free will.
Uh, the laws of matter embodied in my brain? Only I’m not the one here arguing that the word “exactly” actually comes into play given the gap between “I” and “all there is”. You’re the one who seems far more convinced that his own explanations are not in turn really just wild ass guesses given the grand canyon that encompasses the gap between what you think you know about all of this and all that there is to be known about it going back to all there is to know about the existence of existence itself.
See, nature compelled you to prompt me to bring that up again.
No, here we are talking about the brain compelled by nature to make distinctions between short and tall. In other words, these distinctions in themselves are no less determined than height itself. Same with all other distinctions that we make. If we could never not conclude that certain people are beautiful or ugly, what do these distinctions really mean? Only insofar as having free will and being to make arguments of our own volition as to why we think someone is either beautiful or ugly, are these distinctions really substantive.
Or, rather, compelled or not, so it seems to me. Here and now. But at least I’m willing to concede that my own wild ass guess here may well be less reasonable than yours. You’re the one that seems ever intent on pointing out to everyone here that you really do grasp all this as the objectivist.
If only almost always up in the clouds.
Yes, that will always be a point of contention here. Many who embrace free will want to believe that their own great achievements are solely as a result of their own autonomous choices. Whereas many who embrace determinism want to believe that their own dismal failures are solely as a result things “beyond my control”.
That part is obvious. But the part that most mystifies me is how the compatibilists reconcile determinism with their own success and failure. It all revolves around the immutable laws of matter of which my own brain is the embodiment of but somehow I can still be held responsible for succeeding or failing.
To hell with the “majority” or a “consensus” of views. I mean fully demonstrate in the manner in which the American space program demonstrated they could put a man on the Moon. Or how Steve Jobs and others demonstrated that Smart Phones could be invented and widely used. Where is the equivalent of that in regard to the free will debate?
No, the best way to check it is to take his conclusions to a woman who is contemplating an abortion and explain to her and to all of those involved in her decision how Hume himself would encompass the choice that she must make.
Why don’t you give it a shot.
No, my post assumes that Hume, like all the rest of us, possessed a brain wholly in sync with laws of matter such that anything he thought, felt, said or did was the only think that he was ever able to think, feel, say and do. Why? Because going back to whatever brought into existence nature and the laws of matter didn’t change when matter evolved biologically into the human brain.
Unless of course something did change. That elusive “ghost in the machine” that somehow did acquire autonomy, volition, will.
And, given free will on my part, I can only acknowledge that to be true. Only how do I go about figuring out if in fact I do possess free will?
Right, it’s always me resisting your “proofs”, and not you resisting mine. Though I don’t have proofs, right? My arguments unlike yours don’t qualify to be thought of as anything other than not thinking exactly like you do about all this.
To wit:
Right, tell that to Mary. After nature has compelled her to go up into the didactic clouds with you.
Only it’s not just someone thinking that but the fact that thinking about short and tall is in itself the equivalent of being short or tall. It just is what it could never not be.
Only I – me and my very own wild ass guess – come back again and again to “the gap” between what “I” think I know about all of this “here and now” and all that can be known about it.
By, say, God, for example. Or given the manner in which those like the Buddhists or the pantheists construe the universe itself.
But, most importantly, how it all gets configured into actual human-all-too-human contexts like Mary facing the agony of aborting or not aborting her own unborn baby/clump of cells. Free will and determinism and compatibilism there.
Phyllo: He’s saying that the laws of nature force consent into your mind. You don’t have control over it.
Peacegirl: This really truly is the crux of the conundrum whether he thinks so or not. He makes a false distinction between determinism and volition. Of course our minds are compelled to choose what our brains want or not. The big elephant in the room that he won’t answer is whether the laws of matter force, WITHOUT our consent to do what we do.
I have agreed that permitting or refusing to execute an action is also subsumed in the brain state. But this does not take away from the fact that the laws of matter cannot force an action down our throats, without our permission. I can’t make headway because he is monopolizing the thread. No one dare cross him or he’ll accuse them of being up in the didactic clouds when I gave an example down on earth, just as practical has his abortion example. He wins each time because no matter what a person says on this topic it can’t be true since it’s metaphysical, and he can only be correct because the correct answer, according to him, is that there is too big of a gap for anyone to come up with a solution. He will accuse them of being objectivists; it’s their way or the highway. He constantly brings up that this dilemma has never been solved therefore it never can be. Big assumption on his part.
Phyllo: The laws of nature also make you think that something is the ‘best’. Again without your control.
Peacegirl: I agree that we are controlled by laws but we are hitting a brick wall due to definition. We are always moving in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction but that does not mean we are being forced by a third entity (the laws of matter themselves) to do anything we choose not to do. Greater satisfaction could be to save someone’s life and risk our own. It does not mean our choices are always satisfying but they are the best [with the knowledge at our disposal] choice at that moment in time. IOW, they offer us the “greater” satisfaction of the options we are considering. These options are also limited by our brain states, which we have no control over. Phyllo, is this so hard to grasp? It’s unfortunate. I can’t move forward if no one can accept these two premises as true, even tentatively.
