Choice precedes action. It is obvious that when you choose an option, you follow up with doing. It’s just a shortcut to say I chose which implies that what followed was the doing. Even if the doing was not immediate, the point being made here is that there is no doing without first choosing. Show me where this breakdown of the words choice and do changes anything in regard to this discovery.
No, I start all discussions of free will by noting the gap between what any of us think that we know about it “in our head” and all that none of us really grasp for certain about it given 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.
The part where our brains are explaining something when we have no capacity to grasp the limitations of brain matter itself going all the way back to where the human condition itself fits into why there is something instead of nothing and why it is this somethng and not something else.
Then – click – the part where “here and now” I am not myself able to grasp how compatibilists can reconcile determinism and moral responsibility. The part where Mary asks, “if I was compelled by my brain to abort Jane – never able not to abort her – how can I be held morally responsible for doing so?” Unless of course in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, the compatibilists themselves are never able to not insist that she was morally responsible.
Then the more we try to untangle all of these profound imponderables the more tangled up we get.
Then those rabid objectivists among us like peacegirl finally able to grasp the implications of that for their own dogmatic “my way or the highway” convictions.
Okay – click – you are able to opt freely to offer explanatory arguments. Or – No Click – you are offering us only what you could never have not offered us. The part where we are all stuck.
Okay – click – let’s hear it.
No, the only thing that matters to some is that we have no capacity – scientifically, experimentally, experientially, empirically etc. – to demonstrate that what we do care about we opted freely to care about it.
Or have you accomplished this?
Again, sure, there’s a part of me that is no less convinced than the libertarians that I possess the free will necessary to listen to the arguments of those convinced that they are free to offer such arguments.
So – click – let’s hear them.
On the other hand, tonight I might have a dream in which I listen to someone reconcile determinism and moral responsibility. And, in the dream, I am no less convinced that it is not a dream at all. That I am of my own volition choosing to listen. But then I wake up and think, “wow, that ‘reality’ was entirely the creation of my brain, chemically and neurologically!”
Then, of course, those who will absolutely insist that with the waking brain, it’s all different. They “just know” that it is.
I believe this is where “informed consent” was already discussed. You’re only responsible for the information to which you are privy.
Did you know laughter happens in many nonhuman animals & in human babies pretty early - they want to laugh before they can control their diaphragm. It is considered a disorder to lack control past a certain stage of expected development.
But. Something triggers that innate capacity.
Something essentially funny… strange… about reality? Long enough to evolve a reflex to intuitively recognize it?
Iambiguous: No, I start all discussions of free will by noting the gap between what any of us think that we know about it “in our head” and all that none of us really grasp for certain about it given 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.
The part where our brains are explaining something when we have no capacity to grasp the limitations of brain matter itself going all the way back to where the human condition itself fits into why there is something instead of nothing and why it is this somethng and not something else.
Then – click – the part where “here and now” I am not myself able to grasp how compatibilists can reconcile determinism and moral responsibility.
Peacegirl: It can be but you refuse to listen. In an effort to save moral responsibility, compatibilism has tried to give some people the free will to be held accountable. This just goes back to the status quo, the justification to blame.
Iambiguous: The part where Mary asks, “if I was compelled by my brain to abort Jane – never able not to abort her – how can I be held morally responsible for doing so?” Unless of course in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, the compatibilists themselves are never able to not insist that she was morally responsible.
Peacegirl: No one is morally responsible, neither Mary nor the compatibilists. What is it you’re not getting?
Iambiguous: Then the more we try to untangle all of these profound imponderables the more tangled up we get.
Peacegirl: I’m not tangled up. You may be (which it seems you prefer because you don’t want there to be an answer), but this author untangled the imponderable whether you believe it’s possible or not.
Iambiguous: Then those rabid objectivists among us like peacegirl finally able to grasp the implications of that for their own dogmatic “my way or the highway” convictions.
Peacegirl: There is nothing dogmatic about it. He shows in a clear demonstration why the definition you’re using is causing all the problems. You ask no questions. You have no idea what this discovery is. I don’t think you read anything I posted. You can’t deal with the fact that it’s not abstract thought or up in the clouds. You then accuse me of being an objectivist which is a false accusation. Has anyone seen any questions from Iambiguous that showed even a smidgeon of interest in this discovery?
For the rest of your dispute with Flannel Jesus kindly start a new thread because this thread is not about compatibilism versus your definition of determinism.
—————————
Iambiguous: But what I still find fascinating is how some will argue that…
1] Mary was never able not to abort her unborn fetus but, that…
2] Mary is still morally responsible for doing so
[/quote]
Okay – click – you are able to opt freely to offer explanatory arguments. Or – No Click – you are offering us only what you could never have not offered us. The part where we are all stuck.
Okay – click – let’s hear it.
No, the only thing that matters to some is that we have no capacity – scientifically, experimentally, experientially, empirically etc. – to demonstrate that what we do care about we opted freely to care about it.
Or have you accomplished this?
Again, sure, there’s a part of me that is no less convinced than the libertarians that I possess the free will necessary to listen to the arguments of those convinced that they are free to offer such arguments.
So – click – let’s hear them.
On the other hand, tonight I might have a dream in which I listen to someone reconcile determinism and moral responsibility. And, in the dream, I am no less convinced that it is not a dream at all. That I am of my own volition choosing to listen. But then I wake up and think, “wow, that ‘reality’ was entirely the creation of my brain, chemically and neurologically!”
Peacegirl: And? Chemically and neurologically a waking state and a dream state come from the brain. Why would our beliefs change when we sleep. Nothing leans toward free will in either state, but to leave out what is obvious, is that contemplation is part of the deterministic process. It has nothing to do with the ability to choose freely but it does give us the ability to choose based on preference, which is not free.
Iambiguous: Then, of course, those who will absolutely insist that with the waking brain, it’s all different. They “just know” that it is.
Peacegirl: Different states of awareness don’t change our beliefs. We try to work out conflict in a dream state but it’s all run by our neurology and biochemistry. Nothing you say supports the ability to make choices free of the laws of our nature that push us in a particular direction, but your take on determinism is misleading because of how you are defining what it means to have no free will. I’ve gone over this and you have yet to even attempt to understand what I’m saying. You’re just interested I. Hearing your own voice.
Peacegirl,
Putting aside for a moment whether people can choose their actions or they are biologically driven into their actions, do you think people should be held accountable for their actions?
Say a person had no choice but to speed and do 100 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, do you think that person should be held accountable for their actions?
If there is a law against having an abortion, do you think a female that has an abortion should be punished and sent to jail?
Motor Daddy: Peacegirl,
Putting aside for a moment whether people can choose their actions or they are biologically driven into their actions, do you think people should be held accountable for their actions?
Peacegirl: The very fact that we hold people accountable and blame them is the very thing that gives them ample justification to continue doing what they do.
Motor Daddy: Say a person had no choice but to speed and do 100 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, do you think that person should be held accountable for their actions?
Peacegirl: What you are failing to understand is that knowing in advance they will not be held responsible —- when they know they would be —- would be excruciating for the person who would be responsible if by driving at that speed someone was injured or killed. This is what PREVENTS him from ever taking a chance driving at a speed that he know could endanger others.
Motor Daddy: If there is a law against having an abortion, do you think a female that has an abortion should be punished and sent to jail?
Peacegirl: Of course not! All laws telling a person what they and cannot do will not be necessary when they can only do right (or what hurts no one). This decision to abort or not is hers alone. There is no law that can stop an abortion if that is the best choice in the eyes of the woman, even if she goes into a back alley to get it done. When the conditions change, this conflict of aborting or not aborting will not come up because there will be no unwanted pregnancies. It’s going to be difficult to see how applying the basic principle —- once it becomes a permanent condition of the environment —- changes human conduct for the better until you try to grasp the two-sided equation, which no one here has done.
So you think they are justified to continue to do what they do because we blame them for their actions?
What?? Do you think they should receive a ticket for doing 100 MPH in a 55 MPH zone?
How would you make sure that people do only what is right, that hurts no one?
If a woman has an abortion because she thinks that is the right thing to do, but the law claims that is the wrong thing to do, how does that work?
Make sure all laws are in line with self=other, disobey if not, and self-govern according to it where the law neglects it in order to allow self-governance.
Do babies count as an other? Run it through the parable of the good Samaritan. Who is the other?
Knowing in advance they will be blamed and punished, if caught, gives them the justification to go ahead and do what they are contemplating. IOW, it allows them to shift their responsibility to someone or something else to assume some of the blame. As long as they can find a reasonable excuse to justify their actions, their conscience will permit said action.
We are living in a free will environment, so of course they should receive a ticket. But we are talking about what occurs in a no free will environment, which you have yet to understand. Everything takes 180 degree turn.
That is what this entire book is about. It’s about extending this law of our nature (i.e., that will is not free) to see where it leads. Philosophers down through the ages have believed people would become less responsible, which is the exact opposite of what will occur. But there are certain changes that must take place before the basic principle will take effect. This means that all hurt must be removed which includes the insecurity of the economic system. Self-preservation (the first law of nature) justifies doing whatever one can (even if it involves gaining at another’s expense) to feel secure.
You are talking about laws that will not be what controls behavior. It is a higher law of conscience that supercedes all manmade laws. No one is going to judge what someone else does, but no one under the changed conditions will do anything to hurt another so they won’t need to be judged. The reason is that no one will be able to find satisfaction in striking a first blow when they can’t justify it. The issue over abortion is touchy depending on one’s beliefs, but like I said there is no law that can stop a woman from aborting if she feels this is the best choice for her. It has been shown over and over again that women will go to great lengths to get an abortion regardless of the law. Even this situation won’t be a common thing when there are no premarital pregnancies and the people who are married (which has a different meaning in the new world) will want the child, or they will take great care not to get pregnant. But if she did in spite of everything, it will be no one’s business but hers to decide what she wants to do.
_
…extraneous circumstances need to be factored in, much… if you don’t know, you don’t know! Move on and stfu otherwise, ok!?
MagsJ, you are loved.
You all seem to talk in ways that are unclear. Why can’t you talk in specifics?
I don’t lack love or people who care about me… what are you insinuating [yet again] here?
You know I haven’t been in nappies for many decades now, don’tcha? I wear big girl’s blouses… though I ain’t one.
Why you always pickin fights w me MagsJ?
I’m insinuating that the mercilessness against which you guard by calling for consideration of mitigating circumstances calls for love. Even if you merely guard it empathically.
Sam Ruhmkorff
Hard Determinism
This is always the part where [to me] the hard determinist reconfigures into the free will advocate. The lives that we lived are determined. But “somehow” that doesn’t include the way we make choices.
Huh?
The choices themselves can only be as they must be, but: “how” we make them allows for…for what exactly?
If you sit of the couch and bemoan your life [for whatever “reason”], you were never able not to. If you “try” to make your life better, you were still never able not to.
Again, Mary has an abortion. Meaning that, in a wholly determined world she was never free to opt not to. But the way she makes the choice to abort is, well, sort of free?
Explain that to me, Mr. Compatibilist. Given that – click – I am always willing to concede that I am the one misunderstanding all of this.
Back I go…
What we assume is in turn what we were never able not to assume. So, given my entirely compelled understanding of hard determinism, a better or worse life is inherently interchangeable. Your life might “seem” better or worse but it was never able to not seem that way. Why? Because you were never able not to behave as you did in order to make it “seem” one or the other. It’s always your brain calling all the shots.
Just like in your dreams.
You’re confused because you’re misreading it.
But “somehow” that doesn’t include the way we make choices.
The quote doesn’t say that.
Lol ok then! I still love you!
From PN
Again, compelled or not, we clearly understand determinism differently. In a world where all matter is governed by immutable laws nothing is ever random. There’s just 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.
…and how that inevitably led to human brains compelled to “think up” randomness. To think up quantum mechanics. Particles and waves and slots: youtu.be/Hk3fgjHNQ2Q
Boggling many, many minds that then come to conclude the only explanation for the existence of existence itself is God. And, as luck would have it, their God.
Free will? Well, that’s easy. God packs that into our soul.
It always comes back to the profound mystery of human consciousness itself. I merely point out the gap between those like me still utterly mystified by it all and those like peacegirl and others who post “my way or the highway” dogmas that scoff at those too dumb to grasp what they already know to be the objective truth. Some then take this either/or mentality into the is/ought realm. Not only is Mary responsible for aborting Jane but in doing so she behaved immorally.
Now, back to this:
[b]In a wholly determined universe as some understand it, I was never able to not post it at both forums.
Now, for the compatibilists among us, please explain how you reconcile this with my still being responsible for doing so.
In other words, I was never able to freely opt to not post it at both forums, but I can still be scolded justly by you for doing so.[/b]