Spirituality
13 Jun 07
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat's there to clarify? I've told you time and time again why I think your view of freedom is incoherent. Yes, I really do believe it is not the case that the ability to do otherwise is necessary for our acting autonomously. In fact, I don't think the ability to do otherwise is compatible with personal autonomy: if it were the case that I could have done otherwise, then that signals a failure of reason and a disconnect between intention/action and my evaluative commitments and character traits. The world is not totally deterministic; but even if it were, in no way do I think that in itself would preclude our acting autonomously.LEMON
What's there to clarify? I've told you time and time again why I think your view of freedom is incoherent. Yes, I really do believe it is not the case that the ability to do otherwise is necessary for our acting autonomously. In fact, I don't think the ability to do otherwise is compatible with personal autonomy: if it were the case that I could ...[text shortened]... nfixed in you with His foo-foo dust are identically specified at both T0 and T3. Good luck.
RESPONSE---
This is a rationalisation . Notice how you were not able to answer my question directly head on , but went round and round with your intellect refering only to your refutation of my argument rather than the logical implications of your own position.
Now the weak link in compatabilism is this. No-one can really live by the fatalism it implies ..so I ask again...
Do you really , really believe in the depths of your being (not just intellectually but with your gut feelings as well) that the rest of your life and all your future is ....erhem ...inevitable and determined?That you are fated and always have been fated to live the life you are now living to the precisest detail and there's nothing that you can or could ever do about it?
I'll make it easy for you
" I...............(insert your name).... believe that my future 'A' is set and that A is always going to be A no matter what I do because it is determined. I can do nothing to change it. Also I believe that this life I have lived 'B' is the only life I could ever have lived and that 'B' was always going to B regardless of any choice I made or didn't make. I believe this unswervingly and genuinely . This belief resonates with my whole being , I feel it to be true from my head to my toes. I am absolutely certain that there is no other life I could have lived "
signed ..........................................
22 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYour hubris is almost unimaginable!
Notice how you were not able to answer my question directly head on , but went round and round with your intellect refering only to your refutation of my argument rather than the logical implications of your own position.
Bbarr asked you to offer an argument against compatibilism. You have
not done so, but only models that are demonstrably flawed but do not
represent compatibilism.
Bbarr made an argument against libertarian free will. You have not
refuted it, just insisted that 'it doesn't feel right.'
Unbelievable.
Nemesio
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterHow does any of that answer the question? You're talking about deliberation that informs the internal resolve to act (which is compatibilist, by the way). But – again – whatever the content of your deliberation is, this content is identical at T3 and T0. So how can the content of your deliberations explain your acting differently at T4 vice T1? It cannot. So, again, do you have some explanation for your behavior at T4, or not?
You want me to take your view even remotely seriously? Provide explanation for your different action at T4; in doing so, show how this event is neither random nor arbitrary and is consistent with personal autonomy. Remember that whatever mysterious and stupefying features God has infixed in you with His foo-foo dust are identically specified at both T0 ...[text shortened]... on my part , and it would have been so easy to fudge my foul up away with doublespeak as well.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAutonomy is supposed to be about self-governance, so the last thing I would adopt is an account of personal autonomy that entails I have no control over my autonomous actions; that my future will be what it will be regardless of the choices I make. If this is what you think compatibilism entails, you're even denser than I thought. My future will be what it will be because of, not regardless of, the choices I make. All my future free actions will be determined, yes; but of course, they are not determined in any meaningful way by the cosmos generally but rather by me particularly. That’s what I think freedom is: the capacity to act, absent coercion, from reasons, where these reasons are derivative of my personal traits and indicative of my evaluative commitments. But when I determine my intended course of action thusly, it is not the case that I could have "done otherwise" because antecedents (proximately, those related to my psychological states) were sufficient to elicit the choice. So what? You act like under compatibilism the cosmos somehow thrusts a path of life on me, but actually I play a genuine, meaningful role in determining my path. What more do you want? This meaningfulness of volition is something that your view simply disallows: under your view, when one acts freely he does so from insufficient reason; thus you reduce free choices to at bottom arbitrary choices; arbitrary choices are meaningless and simply cannot support personal autonomy.
What's there to clarify? I've told you time and time again why I think your view of freedom is incoherent. Yes, I really do believe it is not the case that the ability to do otherwise is necessary for our acting autonomously. In fact, I don't think the ability to do otherwise is compatible with personal autonomy: if it were the case that I could have d ...[text shortened]... her life I could have lived "
signed ..........................................
You seem like a nice enough fellow knightmeister, but on at least this topic I find you to be an intellectual brick wall. You seem utterly incapable of even understanding compatibilism, let alone bringing considered argument against it. I'm frankly tired of wasting time on you. And as my time now is limited, unless you bring some non-question begging argument, I'm not going to respond anymore.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo no direct answer to my question then.
Autonomy is supposed to be about self-governance, so the last thing I would adopt is an account of personal autonomy that entails I have no control over my autonomous actions; that my future will be what it will be regardless of the choices I make. If this is what you think compatibilism entails, you're even denser than I thought. My future will be what ...[text shortened]... ted, unless you bring some non-question begging argument, I'm not going to respond anymore.
23 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterOMFG! I thought I made it clear that your "question" is at bottom stupid because you clearly do not even understand compatibilism:
So no direct answer to my question then.
Do you really , really believe in the depths of your being (not just intellectually but with your gut feelings as well) that the rest of your life and all your future is ....erhem ...inevitable and determined?That you are fated and always have been fated to live the life you are now living to the precisest detail and there's nothing that you can or could ever do about it?
To answer part of your question, YES my past was determined and my future will be determined. Not strictly, not to the "precisest detail" as you say since the world is not strictly deterministic, but regarding my actions, which are combinations of acts and reasons for carrying out the acts, the answer is yes (which I think is the spirit of your question). I have no idea why you think this is something to be feared, being that this is just what I would hope for myself, that my actions be determined proximately by me, you moron! The rest of your blather does not follow: from that my actions are determined it does not then follow that I play no role in determining them. This just stems from your inability to understand compatibilist thought.
So your question, taken as a whole, is rather stupid in light of what the compatibilist asserts. Literally, the direct answer is NO all the way around because you're even too dense to understand that compatibilism does not entail strict determinism down to the "precisest detail". But in spirit, again I would answer yes to part of it.
Well, I'm done now with you. Believe whatever incoherent crap you want. Cheers.
23 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioExcellent impersonation. Now you can just work on refining the details, such as his preferred comma placement:
Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]BLAH BLAH BLAH
So why are you a hard determinist, again?
j/k[/b]
So why are you a hard determinist , again?
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat you both miss is that despite the fact that compatabilism does not imply hard determinism , the only thing that prevents it from being hard determinism is random indeterminacy. You think that because there are radnom factors involved that this means you have some choice? How queer.
Excellent impersonation. Now you can just work on refining the details, such as his preferred comma placement:
So why are you a hard determinist , again?
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou see its entirely predictable that I will believe whatever I believe. I won't believe what I "want" since what I "want" is not free to be anything I choose. What I "want" to believe has been decided by determinism or randomness. So really my wanting is just an expression of what determinsim has always had in store for me. I am powerless to change it. You have also been determined to get annoyed with me and there was no choice you could have made not to find me frustrating , it was your destiny to break off the discussion. The way you talked at the end seemed to imply that I had some kind of choice about what I "wanted" to believe , but would that not imply free choice?
OMFG! I thought I made it clear that your "question" is at bottom stupid because you clearly do not even understand compatibilism:
[b]Do you really , really believe in the depths of your being (not just intellectually but with your gut feelings as well) that the rest of your life and all your future is ....erhem ...inevitable and determined?That you a ...[text shortened]... t.
Well, I'm done now with you. Believe whatever incoherent crap you want. Cheers.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI am referring to bbarr's solicitation to demonstrate the so-called flawed nature of compatibalism.
You are refering to the T4 debate?
He's offered a clear demonstration why libertarian freewill is incoherent, and you haven't offered a
reasoned argument against that either.
In fact, nearly a dozen people have tried to discuss this with you and you keep insisting that they
hold beliefs that they don't or asserting question-begging things.
But if you could offer a logical reason for the T4 thing, then, hell, I'd consider it a step.
Nemesio
24 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat simply shows you still don't know the first thing about compatibilism.
What you both miss is that despite the fact that compatabilism does not imply hard determinism , the only thing that prevents it from being hard determinism is random indeterminacy.
"Soft determinism" is characterised by a denial that a free act must be an uncaused/undetermined act.
It has nothing to do with quantum indeterminacy. Rather, is a completely different way of understanding what "freedom" is, in terms of human will. A way you are clearly incapable of comprehending.
Do youself a favour and read a book, or at least look it up on the internet.
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo. Oh my God. Knightmeister, just stop, alright? Figure out what compatibilism is before you proceed. For instance, why do you think it's called 'compatibilism'?
You think that because there are radnom factors involved that this means you have some choice? How queer.