compatibilism

Originally posted by apathist
When you're wrong and can't admit, you cry wolf. Well, in your case, you cry liar.

I cry liar when you lie. I can always admit when I am wrong. But I wasn't wrong in this thread and you have not shown otherwise. You have merely made false accusations. Your failure to support said accusations shows that you lied.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I cry liar when you lie. I can always admit when I am wrong. But I wasn't wrong in this thread and you have not shown otherwise. You have merely made false accusations. Your failure to support said accusations shows that you lied.

Aww, you sound upset. I'm sorry that compatibilism needs determinism in order to survive. And it's really distressing that reality does not conform to determinism! What can we do?

I know! We can cry like a baby. Call names. Kick and fuss. Turns out that you're good at that!

Originally posted by apathist
I'm sorry that compatibilism needs determinism in order to survive.

it doesn't. It doesn't rule out truly random quantum events as there being truly random quantum events wouldn't contradict it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...
this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism
..."

The above makes this absolutely clear. PLEASE actually READ the wiki link on compatibilism and learn what it REALLY means. I find it ironic that the person that started this thread about compatibilism apparently doesn't want to know anything about it.

Originally posted by apathist
Aww, you sound upset.

Not really.

I'm sorry that compatibilism needs determinism in order to survive.
I am sorry that you are still pretending that is so despite many people pointing out to you that it isn't.

And it's really distressing that reality does not conform to determinism! What can we do? I know! We can cry like a baby. Call names. Kick and fuss. Turns out that you're good at that!
Turns out that when you are caught lying you try to blame it on someone else. And worse, you start fabricating more lies to try and back up such blame.

You are desperately trying to pin views on me that I have explicitly stated I don't hold so that you can attack those views. Sorry it isn't working out for you.

In one of the threads you said I sounded like a Trump spokesman. Well you are the perfect Trump spokesman. You clearly believe in 'alternative facts'.

Originally posted by humy... I find it ironic that the person that started this thread about compatibilism apparently doesn't want to know anything about it.[/b]

May compatibilism be true if determinism is false?

Get off your high horse, mr humy. You look silly.

Originally posted by twhitehead...
Turns out that when you are caught lying you try to blame it on someone else. And worse, you start fabricating more lies to try and back up such blame.....

Real time. This site has lousy search capabilities, and here we are right now with tw saying apathist is lying. So make your case. I think you are a coward losing an argument, but you can prove I lied. Do so.

Originally posted by apathist
May compatibilism be true if determinism is false?
.

compatibilism might be 'valid' as a reasonable definition regardless of whether determinism is true or false, which is irrelevant. Your use of the word "true" there indicates to me you don't understand compatibilism isn't a theory but rather is a definition (specifically of 'free will' in this case) . It is more appropriate to call a definition valid or invalid rather than true or false. A definition of a word is 'valid' as a reasonable definition if and only if it isn't vague and it isn't self-contradictory and, at least generally, reflects reasonably accurately what most people literally mean by that word within the language and context that word is normally used. For reasons I explained earlier, it is complicated and difficult to say if compatibilism as a definition is truly valid.

Originally posted by humy
...it It doesn't rule out truly random quantum events ....

No such things are known to exist.Been hinting at this for a while.

Originally posted by apathist
No such things are known to exist.

correct.
And it is equally true that no such thing as pseudo-random quantum events are known to exist.

Originally posted by humy
it doesn't. It doesn't rule out truly random quantum events as there being truly random quantum events wouldn't contradict it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
"...
this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of causal determinism
..."

The above makes this absolutely clear. PLEASE actually READ the wiki link on com ...[text shortened]... that started this thread about compatibilism apparently doesn't want to know anything about it.[/b]

Compatibilism does not require determinism to be true? That would change everything. Instead of being compatible, it would argue the determinism may be false!

Or, you don't know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by humy
correct.
And it is equally true that no such thing as pseudo-random quantum events are known to exist.

That made me dizzy! Until now, no one claimed that pseudo-random quantum events existed. It's like you don't know what you are talking about.

Smart people with big egos are a bane, when we are outside of their comfort zone.

Originally posted by apathist
Compatibilism does not require determinism to be true?
.

Compatibilism isn't true or false because it isn't a theory but rather a definition of 'free will'.

Instead of being compatible, it would argue the determinism may be false!

Not "Instead". It is BOTH true that compatibilism is compatible with determinism AND determinism may be false (regardless of whether you accept compatibilism as valid ) .

Originally posted by apathist
Until now, no one claimed that pseudo-random quantum events existed.

what are you talking about? I didn't ever claim pseudo-random quantum events exist but there are plenty of people who do (with erroneously-based belief as we cannot yet rationally know one way or the other)

Originally posted by humy
compatibilism might be 'valid' as a reasonable definition regardless of whether determinism is true or false, which is irrelevant....

Really. So if determinism is false, what is compatibilism compatibilizing?

Originally posted by humy
what are you talking about? I didn't ever claim pseudo-random quantum events exist ...

Yes you did. This very page. This is getting weird with you. I guess you are on a special wiki page of people to not take serious. Guess who else is there?