it's called hard determinism because it is hard to maintain belief in it in face of all the concerns against it
-
-
maybe you should at least read the SEP article on compatibilism or something before going all "facts don't care about your feelings" on them
-
the SEP article on compatibilism OPENS BY TALKING ABOUT HOW IT'S MAKING PROPOSITIONS ABOUT A PROPERTY IT CAN'T COHERENTLY DEFINE and segues into how really we're trying to make moral responsibility i.e. authority to punish compatible with determinism
-
ok you read like two sentences of it and misread it even at that. 1. moral responsibility doesn't entail that punishment is justified. 2. compatibilism is sometimes expressed as the view that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, as it states
-
even if we accept such a definition and even if we erroneously believe that entails that punishment is justified, what makes someone capable of moral responsibility reveals interesting facts about agency that go beyond the moral implications of it
-
all of that shit is a lot of song and dance around the fact that we *are going to* exert interference against collections of molecules that are inconvenient to us so we like to make up doctrines that permit us to do so
-
ok whatever makes you feel better about dismissing large hosts of philosophical work you haven't read
-
i don't have to read everything Piers Anthony has ever written to know that he's crap. if these numbnuts motherfuckers had come up with a usable definition of free will that's neither "casuality but let's pretend" nor acausality you would have brought it up by now tbqf
-
i'm not even talking about "everything". just at least some of it
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
and even if you want to buy into that line it's just pushing the problem back a layer because even if a different kind of causality applies to the soul it's still a causality or it's just things happening for no reason again
-
is this just reduction to materialistic monism again, because that positron is self refuting
-
if everything is deterministic there's no point in having a conversation at all, because all the responses are just predetermined chemistry happening.
-
sure there is, because the conversation becomes part of the preconditions for the further predetermined chemistry
-
and in any event that's the form all argument for free will takes, "if we contemplated reality we would be sad so let's not contemplate reality"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd be surprised, since that's exactly the most parsimonious and useful definition, why eschew it?
-
because on the one hand it's probably bullshit and on the other hand if it isn't bullshit it doesn't actually resolve the issue at all, it just puts it behind a Wizard of Oz curtain
-
it 100% does, though. souls are the origin of causality.
-
that may actually be the case but now we either have souls that have causes or souls that don't have causes so all we've accomplished is to push the original situation into a spooky corner where we can more easily ignore it
-
that's homeomorphic to solving the problem.
-
or, less shitpostily, souls are *partially deterministic,* emerging from specific patterning of massenergy but able to act acausally upon massenergy.
-
that's very unlikely, but even if we got all the way to acausality, literally things happening for no reason, that's not any more anybody's idea of free will than strong determinism is
-
the reason is "the soul wants to," that's not acausal, that's literally an expression of will as the cause.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.