“You’ve developed some formidable defensiveness.”
You got to in my field. Everybody’s trying to kill you, blow your shit up, lock you down, lock you in a cell, or lock you down in a cell.
And restrict your free will, I suppose.
You can linguistically deny the act, but you cannot deny the consequences of your denial.
Take care.
As always, those seeking relief, choose to define concepts in ways that nullify their actions, because their willful acts, including choices, are undeniably part of the causes they want to blame on something other than themselves.
With no scapegoat, having ‘overcome that outdated abstraction,’ they replace an absolute god with an absolutely ordered cosmos.
Their authoritarian totalitarianism leaves no room for shame or guilt, which was the point.
Their ego is “saved”, from the implications of having made errors in judgment, based on faulty reasoning. They require no excuses because nothing they’ve done, or will ever do, could have been done otherwise.
No regrets…the gift of fatalism.
Negation all the way to the grave.
“You can linguistically deny the act,but you cannot deny the consequences of your denial”
That’s good. I’m gonna send that one to the governor in an email.
Good, you’re getting it… slowly.
Maybe our arguments over the years are beginning to sink in and you’ll come around… who knows, right?
Pereboom’s Four Case Argument against Compatibilism at Philosophical Disquisitions
So which type of causal sequences do the trick? A variety of accounts have been proposed over the years. Here are four of the more popular ones:
Character-based account: A decision can be said to be “free” if it is caused by, and not out of character for, a particular agent. This is the view traditionally associated with the likes of David Hume. It is probably too simplistic to be useful. Other compatibilist accounts offer more specific conditions.
On the other hand, aren’t all of our assessments here regarding compatibilism “too simplistic to be useful” given The Gap and Rummy’s Rule? Sure, the subject is so fascinating and so relevant to human interactions that those of our ilk will always be grappling to understand it. But not many have come to suspect [as I have] that we’ll go to the grave without ever approaching a definitive answer from the scientific community.
But then back to the part where the human condition is such that all one needs to do is to believe what one does. That’s what makes it true, the mere belief itself.
Then the account associated with those like Schopenhauer. The assumption that while most are convinced that, at any given time, they themselves choose to want chocolate, to desire it, what if what they want to want and desire is no less autonomic?
Pereboom’s Four Case Argument against Compatibilism at Philosophical Disquisitions
Reasons-responsive account: A decision can be said to be free if it is caused by a decision-making mechanism that is sufficiently responsive to reasons. In other words, if the mechanism had been presented with a different set of reasons-for-action, it would have produced a different decision (in at least some possible worlds). This is the account associated with Fischer and Ravizza, and comes in several different forms (weak, moderate and strong responsiveness).
On the other hand, how do we determine definitively whether or not in calling a decision free this is not in turn just another entirely determined component of the only possible reality? What if none of the “mechanisms” used here are autonomous? We might encounter any number of “reasons-for-action” sets but that may well be just another inherent manifestation of determinism.
Over and over and over again, we come upon those here with conflicting assessments of a functioning human brain. In particular pertaining to moral responsibility. That’s really the bottom line for many. In other words, we have to possess at least some measure of free will or we become little more than nature’s automatons.
The rest seems to be embedded in The Gap and Rummy’s Rule. Especially the part where we don’t even know what we don’t even know yet about the human condition.
Pereboom’s Four Case Argument against Compatibilism at Philosophical Disquisitions
As you can see, all of these accounts [above] claim that a certain type of causal sequence has the “right stuff” for free will, irrespective of whether the decisions produced are fully determined by those causal sequences.
But what if every single claim is just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? In other words, even if others see your own claim as false and their own as true, what does true and false really mean when for all practical purposes the claims are wholly determined by brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter?
As for what all of this may or may not mean, same thing. If what we think it means reflects only that which we were never able to think otherwise…?
Okay, how exactly did Pereboom explain his challenges as anything other than his own brain inherently manipulating him to think, feel, intuit, say and do only that which he was never able not to. Him then being entirely manipulated in turn…fated? destined? just one more of nature’s human automatons?
Of course, this is where I often get “stuck”. People will speak of those who might grab your arm, stick a knife in your hand and force you to stab someone. But that assumes that the person who grabs your arm did so autonomously. Others might be manipulating [using, gaslighting] you to do things that they were themselves no less compelled to do.
Or, if you conclude there are parts which indicate some measure of free will, how would you go about eliminating the possibility that those parts too aren’t manifestation of the psychological illusions of autonomy?
“It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain… Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not…To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence” Wilder Penfield
Okay, going back to all we still do not know regarding how and why the human condition fits into an explanation for the existence of existence itself, it may well be that human brains will never be able to grasp it…ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?
Instead, those like henry quirk simply aver – assert, affirm, declare, state, allege, claim – that a God, the God, their God implanted free will in our very souls at the point of conception. Or something along those lines.
For henry, it’s the Deist God.
Only he is long gone and may well never return to His…Creation?
Then this part…
‘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.’
Where’s the link to an actual argument – proof? – that comes closest to a consensus “here and now” among philosophers, scientists [and theologians?] regarding the human brain/mind relationship.
Finally [for those of my own considerably more cynical, uncertain, ambiguous bent], it all comes back around to this:
Lists of earthquakes - Wikipedia’
List of large volcanic eruptions - Wikipedia
List of the most intense tropical cyclones - Wikipedia
List of tsunamis - Wikipedia
List of landslides - Wikipedia
List of fires - Wikipedia
List of epidemics and pandemics - Wikipedia
List of deadliest floods - Wikipedia
Tornado records - Wikipedia
Lists of diseases - Wikipedia
List of extinction events - Wikipedia
Okay, consciousness is finally pinned down. And, as well, in a world where it is determined [no pun intended] that “somehow” we did acquire free will.
Someone or something “out there” either is or is not able to encompass human interactions given a font from which all that is Creation is encompassed.
Which, of course, most call God.
Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.
For Hume, free will is compatible with determinism as long as our actions are not compelled by forces outside of us. In other words, if I hit you in the face then I am responsible for the act if the impetus for the action came from within me.
Years ago, I read a science fiction novel describing how, in the more or less distant future, a person went to a doctor or to a psychiatrist in which there were pods in his or her office. The doctor/shrink sat in one, the patient in the other. In other words, the doctor/shrink could actually feel the same somatic symptoms as the patient did and/or the same mental and emotional states.
How many less “failures to communicate” might there be?
Is anyone able to, perhaps, provide me with their own interpretation of Hume here in regard to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy choosing/“choosing” an abortion being told that she was never really free to opt not to abort, but she is still morally responsible for doing so.
As for the “impetus for the action”, how would that be demonstrated to reflect a manifestation of human autonomy rather than an inherent autonomic sequence orchestrated entirely by the brain entirely in sync with the laws of matter.
In other words, the part where women and men approach all of this as scientists, philosophers and/or theologians. And all I can do is to follow the arguments for or against autonomy given the assumptions I embed in a No God world.
And how might impenetrable above be just another word for ineffable? Here and now we simply do not grasp the brain intelligently enough to go much beyond what may well be an exchange of more or less sophisticated conjectures. The part embedded in Donald Rumsfeld’s own speculation that…
https://youtu.be/REWeBzGuzCc?si=Of5X9JuYcnjGIs7V
In particular, when involving the Big Questions: “but there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.”
Let’s do a little essay review:
Student, please connect this to the text you quoted. You just wrote this paragraph after quoting that text from Sapolsky, but there’s no indication anywhere about how it connects to that text. What do the chairs have to do with what Sapolsky said about Hume’s compatibilism?
What does this question mean? How many less might there be if what? Less is a comparative thing, what two things are you comparing? Are you comparing contemporary psychiatrists with fictional psychiatrists who have this advanced chair? Are you trying to say that this type of chair would result in fewer failures to communicate between patients and their psychiatrists?
Could possibly be a good question, but is too specific for the context and unrelated to all text you wrote prior to this paragraph. Disjointed. Your writing seems to lack a goal or structure.
Once again disconnected from your quote from Sapolsky and all prior text.
When you quote someone and start replying to it, I recommend you come up with a goal for what you want to communicate about that text, and everything you say should be working towards that goal. Right now, every paragraph is just random and disjointed.
A person says “in other words” when they’re rephrasing something. It doesn’t look like this is a rephrasing of any part of the text you quoted.
This also isn’t a complete sentence. This is a sentence fragment. What are you trying to say? In your writing, you should have a goal and work towards it.
This doesn’t communicate anything to the reader. You aren’t sharing a single thought with this sentence. It doesn’t do anything, and it doesn’t matter. Please avoid sentences like this.
Actually a meaningful sentence! And yes, impenetrable here means something not too far off from ineffable, kind of.
This, again, isn’t really saying anything. You’ve written a lot of words to say exceptionally little. Student, you don’t need an entire paragraph to express your own ignorance. That’s what this is doing, right? Talking about “unknown unkowns” - you’re just saying, you don’t know how brains work, there’s a lot of unknown unknowns to you. You can communicate it much more succinctly, you don’t need any fancy footwork, you don’t need any links to youtube videos. You can simply say, the brain is a mystery to you and you don’t know how it works. Job done, one simple sentence. But that shouldn’t really be ALL you say - your readers don’t just want to read about your ignorance. They want you to communicate interesting thoughts, and “I’m ignorant about how brains work”, while true, isn’t particularly interesting.
Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.
Lots of people aren’t going to like that conclusion [above], but it’s the same one that the political philosopher John Rawls came to: that the rich and powerful owe their position to luck rather than merit.
Of course: luck and merit here are interchangeable. Or so say the hardcore determinists. If everything we think, feel, intuit, say and do is a necessary part of the only possible reality, what does it really matter if the ruling class says it’s merit, while many others insist it’s luck.
On the other hand, “if” here revolves around one of the most fascinating – exasperating? – of all the philosophical antinomies. Once we venture far enough out onto the Big Questions metaphysical branch, for instance. In other words, all the things we do not even know that we do not even know yet regarding the interaction of the very, very small QM world and the very, very large multiverse?
Fitting the human brain in here…somewhere, somehow, some day?
Uh, true grit, Pilgrim? 8)
On the other hand, how feeble?
Though this basically encompasses much of my own frame of mind here. Still, many will insist that genes must prevail here. Memes, they sniff, are for sissies.
Then the part where, given some measure of free will [and particular contexts], “grit” is understood in conflicting ways. Morally and politically, for example. Thus, “courage and resolve” given what particular situation?
Then the part where existence itself emerged? Out of nothing at all? Then stars and planets emerged. Then biological matter emerged. Then the evolution of biological life into conscious matter, evolving eventually into self-conscious matter…us.
I mean, what’s not already understood entirely about all that?
Determined by Robert Sapolsky
Philip Badger questions Robert Sapolsky’s determinism.
Brilliant Imperfection. At times, this book is a brilliant antidote to the incoherence of our thinking about things like good and evil.
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect. Unless, perhaps, you are someone who claims that even though you were, are and always will be inherently and necessarily both, that’s still “compatible” with being responsible. Morally and otherwise.
Then the part where some [compelled or otherwise] insist that human psychology, human emotions and human intuitions are no less intrinsic manifestations of the only possible world.
Some here call this their very own “intrinsic self”. The deep down inside them “real me” that, when mindless matter configured into biological, self-conscious matter, we “somehow” acquired autonomy.
I can live with that. You can live with that. Others can live with that. But that’s not the same as actually demonstrating it is, in fact, ontologically or teleologically true. Let alone deontologically applicable to all of us.
Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, lifetimes. Time frames embedded in ever evolving contingency, chance and change. And then going all the back eons to…to what exactly?
One thing seems certain, however. If your life is bursting at the seams with any number of extraordinary accomplishments and satisfactions, it’s not likely you are going to just shrug and conclude “it was all beyond my control”. Or, on the other hand, if your life circumstantially is in the shitter, you can always fall back on “it was all beyond my control”.
So, those who insist it’s all about free will and those who insist that none of it is, may not be able to demonstrate it unequivocally, but then neither can demonstrate that the other frames of mind here are false.
Once again, a post where you entirely avoid sharing your own thoughts. Like most of your posts.
What do you think? Do you think we have free will? Do you think we live in a deterministic world? Do you think both things at the same time? What do you actually believe, and why do you believe it?
I know you’re fractured and fragmented, so don’t give me that - we’re all fractured and fragmented. Most of us still think things. So avoid the ‘fractured and fragmented’ sidestep and please tell the audience, what do you think is true?
Just for the record, unless the flannel jesus here and the flannel jesus at the Philosophy Now forum are two completely different people…?
Flannel Jesus there:
"I think you might be retarded @biggy
There’s nothing to compare, you quoted text and then didn’t even begin to reply at all to what it said.
Nobody knows what Rummys Rule is you fucking retard. Speak normal English."
“…he genuinely spends most of his words saying absolute tripe, and someone has to tell him.”
…
“Instead of littering your posts with words you know nobody else knows what they mean because you invented them, and hoping they ask you, you could just speak fucking english you fucking attention-starved narcissist.”
“You’re genuinely such a dumbass for thinking that’s a thing you should do. Invent words and beg people to ask you about them.”
“What the actual fuck are you babbling about? What does this sci fi novel have to do with the thing you quoted? Why are you quoting text just to talk about something else entirely? Please tell me, are you actually retarded?”
“I don’t know where you’re getting this tripe from. You’re just inventing absolute garbage out of thin air.”
“What do magic therapy chairs have to do with Hume being a compatibilist? Biggy you fucking doofus, you might as well just say you’re coocoo for Coco puffs. It would be as on topic as that tripe you did say.”
“Okay, so you are precisely as retarded as everyone else already thinks you are. Got it. I keep on trying to give you a chance to do better, that’s obviously very silly of me.”
"Another thing biggy says that he thinks means something to other people.
“Waffle iron to flannel Jesus: get a load of this guy”.
Wtf does that shit even mean? Does he not know how he sounds?
"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."
“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.”
Meanwhile the flannel jesus here posted this a few days ago in response to jupiter123
"Calling people idiot, loser, fool… you had like 4 or 5 posts in a row with serious direct insults, and you need to rein it in.
“You’ve been a bit too heavy on the insults man, this is an official warning. Next blatant insult will be met with a suspension.”
Of course, if he/she is the same person, what to make of that?
Meanwhile, not only do I make it clear I am not arguing that all rational men and women are obligated to think as I do, I remind everyone, instead, that I’m always willing to explore the possibility that I am in fact not thinking this all through reasonably.
In fact, over and again, I note that, “here and now”, given a No God universe, I have managed to think myself into believing that…
1] that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless
2] that human morality in a No God world revolves largely around a fractured and fragmented assessment of right and wrong rooted existentially in dasein.
3] that oblivion is awaiting all of us when we die
I want to be convinced otherwise!
In the interim, in regard to the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us, it’s back to this:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.
1 Like
I don’t know who that guy is. What I do know is, it’d be real interesting to see you share your thoughts for once. What do you actually believe about determinism and free will?
Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t
By Dennis Overbye at the New York Times
I was a free man until they brought the dessert menu around. There was one of those molten chocolate cakes, and I was suddenly being dragged into a vortex, swirling helplessly toward caloric doom, sucked toward the edge of a black (chocolate) hole. Visions of my father’s heart attack danced before my glazed eyes. My wife, Nancy, had a resigned look on her face.
Then our very own rendition of that.
Surely, given experiences like the one above, it would seem nothing short of preposterous to suppose we don’t embody at least some measure of free will. I would certainly never argue it’s out of the question. Unless I was, in fact, never able to argue otherwise?
Or suppose I had a dream last night in which the same experience unfolded. While in the dream, however, I’m convinced I’m not dreaming at all. And yet the entire experience was just a dream. My brain created it.
How? Why?
And yet when confronted with that, many will insist the wide awake brain is just…different. And it certainly may well be. God or No God. But just believing that it is up in the philosophical clouds is not the same thing as philosophers and scientists announcing one day that together they have finally resolved it.
They go about explaining how the human condition is intertwined in a reality that goes all the way back to a definitive explanation for the existence of existence itself. The Big Bang? The multiverse? They note how and why mindless matter evolved into biological matter evolved into conscious matter evolved into self-conscious matter.
Thus…
Never in doubt? Or never able to be in doubt?
On the other hand, once a God, the God becomes embedded in the narrative, that is one possible explanation for free will. And all you need to do then is scoff at all those who refuse to accept that it is your own God.
One cool thing about all the articles that you quote is that they all have views on whether or not we have free will, and whether or not it’s likely we live in a deterministic universe - and then they give their reasons for having those views. It would be super neat if you could maybe write a post of your own like that.
I went to the start of the thread to see if I could find any of your actual thoughts on determinism / free will. I was actually surprised to find that you wrote some of them!! I’m genuinely impressed Iambiguous. I didn’t think you did that sort of thing.
So randomness doesn’t seem reasonable, instead, what we think and feel and do seem to be intertwined in the immutable laws of matter. So you are a determinist after all - and obviously a non-compatibilist one. Good to know.
Now you’ve been talking about compatibilsm for years now. There’s 2 possible reasons for that. Well, more than 2, of course, but 2 that immediately come to mind:
-
You really want compatibilism to be true, so you’re desperately searching for an actually compelling argument for it.
-
You’ve already been half-convinced by some very good argument for it, but you aren’t convinced all the way and you want to be sure.
I suppose another possibility is:
- You actually HATE compatibilism as a concept, and these years of reading and talking about it are based on a hate-obsession with it.
In the off-chance that it’s #2, what argument for compatibilism do you find the most persuasive so far?
Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Don’t
By Dennis Overbye at the New York Times
Having just lived through another New Year’s Eve, many of you have just resolved to be better, wiser, stronger and richer in the coming months and years. After all, we’re free humans, not slaves, robots or animals doomed to repeat the same boring mistakes over and over again.
See how it works? By and large? You come to an assessment and a conclusion regarding human autonomy based on what you believe “here and now” is true philosophically about it “in your head”. But then the part where philosophers take it to those folks who ever and always engage “the scientific method” while exploring it, and are able to confirm what the philosophers believe.
That might well work for me. So, by all means, link me to what you deem to be the optimal assessment…one in which both philosophers and scientists are of one mind.
His sense, my sense, your sense, their sense. Then what? At least until philosophers and scientists are able to establish the optimal manner in which to encompass the human brain when behaviors are chosen.
And, really, what are the odds our own virtual reality here is the exception to the rule? The naked ape riding whatever a full understanding of both the subconscious and unconscious mind actually means for all practical purposes when, say, posting? Though even our frantically making up stories to wrest control of our reality from the “deep state” brain may well be wholly determined as well.