Determinism

Okay, but my exactly seems to be at odds with…yours? And certainly at odds with peacegirl’s, phyllo’s and pood’s.

Mine starts with an ineffable intertwining of the educated and the wild ass guess assumption that in a determined universe each of our exactlys is only as it ever could have been. Given “the gap”.

It might be “exactly”, exactly or “exactly”.

Then the part where, in regard to moral responsibility, the ontological – teleological? – nature of exactly becomes applicable to Mary aborting her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

As in, “exactly what is her moral responsibility” after it is shredded into oblivion?

Okay, but my exactly seems to be at odds with…yours? And certainly at odds with peacegirl’s, phyllo’s and pood’s.

Mine starts with an ineffable intertwining of the educated and the wild ass guess assumption that in a determined universe each of our exactlys is only as it ever could have been. Given “the gap”.

Peacegirl: There really is no gap that requires us to go back to the Big Bang to figure out whether we do or don’t have free will. This is your concoction. No one is saying that our “exactly’s”could have been any different so stop repeating what any determinist already knows.

Iambiguous: It might be “exactly”, exactly or “exactly”.

Then the part where, in regard to moral responsibility, the ontological – teleological? – nature of exactly becomes applicable to Mary aborting her unborn zygote/embryo/fetus.

As in, “exactly what is her moral responsibility” after it is shredded into oblivion?

Peacegirl: What she thinks is best IS her choice. Who determines what is right in this type of situation? You? Are you the designated moralist? In the new world no one will be judged by a code of ethics because it is this moral judgment that is actually preventing the very thing it is making efforts to prevent. You would not understand this because your mind won’t let you. You’re off the hook.

lol.

You are saying nothing.

And note that this person is somehow constitutionally unable to challenge his own assumption, which he admits his a wild ass guess, that “in a determined universe each of our exactys is only as it ever could have been.”

If you are not willingly to constantly challenge your own assumptions, you cannot do either science or philosophy.

Regularity theory, as I have explained, challenges this assumption, and does so with evidence and arguments, not “wild ass guesses.”

Click.

Just for the record, given the manner in which I understand determinism, all “persons” are constitutionally able or unable to think, feel, say and do only those things that the laws of nature [whatever that actually means] compel them to. No exceptions.

Only, unlike with pood, peacegirl and their objectivist/abstractionist/definitionist ilk, I readily acknowledge the part that goes beyond reasoning these profoundly problematic relationships out to the best of my ability and encompasses in turn all that I do not know about the human condition given what I do not know about the existence of existence itself.

A trivial pursuit for them.

Again, I await the empirical, material, phenomenological evidence that he has accumulated which confirms that the definitional logic assumptions of Regularity Theory renders “the gap” moot and does in fact demonstrate to us how, given his own understanding of determinism and human responsibility, Mary either is or is not morally responsible for shredding Jane.

In, for example, the same manner in which an electrical engineer can demonstrate how the laws of nature are responsible for the functioning of a lightbulb.

Though even here the electrical engineer cannot explain to us why these laws exist as they do and not in some other way given what he or she does not know about the nature of existence itself.

Free will doesn’t exist. Compatibilism makes no sense.
Brian Hines from the Church of the Churchless website

Again, here’s the part that always perplexes me…

Harris writes what he does about determinism, free will and compatibilism as though he did in fact have free will in the manner in which, say, the libertarians construe it. He speaks of [criticizes] those who produce “a vast literature in an effort to salvage free will” as though he was able to opt of his own volition to speak differently of them. Why doesn’t he pull back and note this: “okay, I’m making this point about the compatibilists but I recognize that I could never have not made it. Any more than the compatibilists could have opted not to think and believe and say what they do.”

There are no “outer and inner” compulsions given my own understanding of determinism. There are only the physical laws of matter embodied in the human brain such that both Harris and those he “disagrees” with are exchanging only the words they were never able not to exchange.

Huh? What reason unrelated to his non-existent free will? That is the only reason there can ever possibly be for anything that he thinks, feels, says or does if his own human brain is not somehow the exception to the rule re the physical, material, phenomenological laws of nature. Going back to…to what exactly? Aside from “the gap”.

Peacegirl: As smart as you think you are Iambiguous, you’re clueless!!! I am asking you to kindly stop responding to my thread. Start a new thread that will support your beliefs and LEAVE MY THREAD ALONE!

PG,

You’re wrong.

You have to exist in order to do something. That’s called a condition.

So we now know freewill is impossible.

In order to perceive the concept of choice, choice must actually exist. If it didn’t exist, it would be impossible to argue for or against it.

The solution is compatiblism.

Those are two proof that nothing must exist in order for your argument to be true.

Since something always exists, your arguments are false.

Nature to peacegirl:

Chip, chip chip.

I taught him that. :sunglasses:

No one said choice doesn’t exist. But it’s not FREE choice. Your reasoning is as poor as iambiguous’s.

And you can’t read.

But I’m anticipating your argument already.

People have no freewill because they always make the best choice they can make for themselves at the moment, and if they choose against it, they chose hell of their own volition.

Let’s agree on your argument before we actually discuss it.

Remember though. I can go back and quote you in this thread.

If you want to change your argument, feel free to do so.

Ecmandu: PG,

You’re wrong.

Peacegirl: No you’re wrong.

Ecmandu: You have to exist in order to do something. That’s called a condition.

So we now know freewill is impossible.

In order to perceive the concept of choice, choice must actually exist. If it didn’t exist, it would be impossible to argue for or against it.

The solution is compatiblism.

Peacegirl: Free will and no free will ARE NOT COMPATIBLE! It’s a logical inconsistency!

Ecmandu: Those are two proof that nothing must exist in order for your argument to be true.

Since something always exists, your arguments are false.

Peacegirl: No one said choice doesn’t exist. But it’s not FREE choice. Your reasoning is as poor as iambiguous’s.

Ecmandu: And you can’t read.

But I’m anticipating your argument already.

Peacegirl: Stop projecting.

Ecmandu: People have no freewill because they always make the best choice they can make for themselves at the moment, and if they choose against it, they chose hell of their own volition.

Peacegirl: They can’t choose against it. You’re clueless.

Let’s agree on your argument before we actually discuss it.

Ecmandu: Remember though. I can go back and quote you in this thread.

Peacegirl: Be my guest.

Ecmandu: If you want to change your argument, feel free to do so.

Peacegirl: Ditto

I already said that everything is conditional.

That’s why I said you can’t read.

In order for us to exist, existence must exist - a condition - therefor the idea of freewill is a non starter.

Defending choice with determinism IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBALISM!!!

Can you get that through your thick skull?

Many people in this thread have told you that.

That’s not only how definitions work, that’s how concepts work.

The burden of proof is on you to prove concepts and definitions work differently.

[quote=“Ecmandu”]
I already said that everything is conditional.

Peacegirl: Everything IS based on conditions. Who is arguing with this?

Ecmandu: That’s why I said you can’t read.

In order for us to exist, existence must exist - a condition - therefor the idea of freewill is a non starter.

Peacegirl: That’s a non sequitur if I ever heard one.

Ecmandu: Defending choice with determinism IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBALISM!!!

Peacegirl: They are defending free will with a definition that is inaccurate. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. We have choice but we don’t have a free choice. Do you not get that?

Ecmandu: Can you get that through your thick skull?

Many people in this thread have told you that.

Peacegirl: Why do you feel so threatened by this knowledge?

Ecmandu: That’s not only how definitions work, that’s how concepts work.

Peacegirl: If they bear truth.

Ecmandu: The burden of proof is on you to prove concepts and definitions work differently.

Peacegirl: Concepts and definitions can be true, or not, depending on how close they come to describing reality.

PG wrote,

“We have choice but we do not have free choice. Do you get that?”

Ecmandu replies:

That’s the absolute PERFECT definition of compatibalism!!!

Talk about projection!!

Through this whole thread you have given the perfect definition of compatibalism and then get angry at anyone who argues compatibalism.

You’re mad at your reflection in the mirror.

You’re the person projecting in this thread.

You’re the one with cognitive dissonance.

You’re the person who hates you.

We’re just giving you definitional facts here.

PG wrote,

“We have choice but we do not have free choice. Do you get that?”

Ecmandu replies:

That’s the absolute PERFECT definition of compatibalism!!!

Peacegirl; It might be a perfect definition of compatibilism, BUT IT’S INCORRECT. IT’S A SEMANTIC SHIFT TO MAKE THE TWO APPEAR COMPATIBLE.! They qualify what free will is by trying to define what it is not! Only people who have a gun to their head or OCD have no free will, according to them. This is in no way, shape, or form an accurate definition although it’s useful for their purposes of keeping determinism intact and also the status quo of blame and punishment without it appearing contradictory.

Ecmandu: Talk about projection!!

Through this whole thread you have given the perfect definition of compatibalism and then get angry at anyone who argues compatibalism.

Peacegirl: What I’m describing determinism to be is not in the slightest related to compatibilism and if you showed a little bit of interest, you would have seen that.

Ecmandu: You’re mad at your reflection in the mirror.

You’re the person projecting in this thread.

You’re the one with cognitive dissonance.

You’re the person who hates you.

We’re just giving you definitional facts here.

Peacegirl: You disagree because you, like Iambiguous, are using an inaccurate definition of determinism, which makes it appear we have no choice. We are puppets. That is not the definition I am using.

No.

Iambiguous and I have different arguments.

Iambiguous argues the god argument, the common ancestor argument, the common decent argument from an initial condition.

I argue that we were all never born and we all never die.

Different arguments. Iambiguous projects because he always offers the god argument while submitting god doesn’t exist.

My argument is different.

I’m literally saying that if CHOICE has not and cannot ever exist in someway … then it couldn’t be possible for us to debate for or against it.

But you agree choice exists, but then you say there’s no choice to our choice.

Again, this is YOU projecting !!!

You’re a compatibalist, who hates compatibalism.

I’m not the crazy one here, you and iambiguous are.

Ecmandu: No.

Iambiguous and I have different arguments.

Iambiguous argues the god argument, the common ancestor argument, the common decent argument from an initial condition.

I argue that we were all never born and we all never die.

Different arguments. Iambiguous projects because he always offers the god argument while submitting god doesn’t exist.

My argument is different.

I’m literally saying that if CHOICE has not and cannot ever exist in someway … then it couldn’t be possible for us to debate for or against it.

Peacegirl: You’re absolutely right. We make choices every single day.

Ecmandu: But you agree choice exists, but then you say there’s no choice to our choice.

Peacegirl: We contemplate our options which help us to decide what our next move will be, but once we follow through on a choice, we could never have done otherwise because we cannot move against what we find the most preferable.

Ecmandu: Again, this is YOU projecting !!!

You’re a compatibalist, who hates compatibalism.

I’m not the crazy one here, you and iambiguous are.

Peacegirl: I’m so far from being a compatibilist, it’s a joke.

Ok.

I get your definition of determinism now.

We can’t go back and change it.

Are you sure that’s true? I’m just curious because three counter arguments just popped into my head for that.

We cannot reverse time and undo what has already been done. If you believe we can reverse time, then we are off to a bad start.