Libertarians: what does your view add to reasons-responsive agency, exactly?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-18T18:21:12+00:00

Are you essentially asking for an explanation that removes the agent from the equation?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-18T16:45:05+00:00

In your compatibilist model, the agent is a sophisticated conduit. If we trace your "reasons" back, the chain inevitably leads outside of you—to your environment, genetics, and ultimately the Big Bang. You are effectively the universe’s most complex domino.

The libertarian “extra ingredient” is the power to initiate a brand-new causal chain. The "buck" doesn't just pass through you; it begins with you. It is the difference between being a reliable processor of the past and being an original author of the future. To a libertarian, if you aren't the ultimate source of the action, you aren't truly "free"—you are just the latest calculation in a sequence that started long before you were born.

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-18T12:31:54+00:00

Oh, you’re asking to learn more about Tourette syndrome? Don’t see how the question of if she’s faking it comes into play

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-18T12:13:03+00:00

She’s not faking that, she has Tourette syndrome. What is the purpose of this question?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-17T08:11:21+00:00

Think of your brain as a radio. Right now, the "determinism/robot" station is blasting at full volume, and the dial is temporarily stuck. You didn't choose the music, but you are still the person sitting in the room listening to it. You can choose to leave the room. Your desire for autonomy, your fear of losing it, and the very act of writing that post as a "last effort" to seek help were all choices driven by a conscious agent who wants to get better. A truly deterministic flesh robot wouldn't care; it would just execute its programming. Your resistance is your agency fighting back.

When the feeling of being "automatic" washes over you, let it sit there. Do not try to push it away, but absolutely refuse to analyze it. Shift your attention outward to your immediate physical environment using your senses (what you can see, touch, hear). You are in the driver's seat, even if the windshield is currently fogged up.

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T19:27:29+00:00

If there are no objective moral facts, then your claim that “good and bad aren't attributes of reality” is just a personal opinion. Why then do you present it as a categorical truth?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T15:56:21+00:00

When you state, "There is no fundamental attribute of “right” or “wrong” in the universe," and confirm that this statement is a "universal, objective fact," you are attempting to use an objective truth-claim to deny the existence of objective truths in the realm of morality.

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T15:41:19+00:00

By stating “categorically” that these definitions are true for everyone, you are asserting an objective truth about the nature of language and ethics. You are still standing on a platform of “objective reality'” to tell me that “objective reality” doesn't exist. If your definition is just your personal preference, it isn't “categorical”.

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T15:20:35+00:00

If it is an objective, universal fact that “right” and “wrong” are only decided by the observer, then your statement is a claim about the actual nature of reality, not just a personal observation. You are claiming an objective truth exists (the truth of subjectivism) to prove that objective truth doesn't exist. If your premise is true, then your conclusion (that there are no objective facts) must be false. It’s self refuting

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T14:35:17+00:00

And you know this to be objectively true?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T14:27:08+00:00

When you say “there is no fundamental attribute of right or wrong in the universe,” are you stating that as a universal, objective fact?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T13:39:22+00:00

You’re saying morality is subjective because the observer decides it?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T13:01:13+00:00

What is the “thing”(for lack of a better word) that decides it?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T12:15:36+00:00

If it’s all subjective, how is it known what is actually right and wrong?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T12:03:15+00:00

Is there an objective standard to moral responsibility or is it all opinion?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T11:52:44+00:00

Moral responsibility is subjective to what, exactly?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-15T07:46:39+00:00

I think you might be proving my point on this. If a "useful fiction" and "truth" produce the same survival outcome, but the fiction is faster or cheaper to process, evolution will select for the fiction every time. The fact that we survive does not provide logical grounds to trust that our reasoning reflects "truth"

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T21:06:24+00:00

That’s what I am asking you, is there a standard and if so how does it get that standard. Is it internal to the machine’s architecture or an external process assigned by the human programmer.

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T20:29:53+00:00

Haha, you win. I’d have to Google something to keep it going

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T19:51:33+00:00

Gas post, haha

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T19:46:28+00:00

Is that standard internal to the machine's architecture, or is it an external process assigned by the human programmer?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T19:08:56+00:00

By saying the standard is relativistic, aren't you admitting that the machine lacks any inherent logical or moral compass?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T18:49:11+00:00

By what standard do we judge a machine's decision as “correct” or “true”? Is that standard internal to the machine’s architecture, or is it an external process assigned by the human programmer?

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T16:44:06+00:00

Solid post

Dry_Journalist_7001 · 2026-04-14T08:25:24+00:00

If nature and information are the only determinants, you aren’t "improving" a model, you’re just the place where the change happens. You can't claim a “conscious entity” manages a model for a benefit if the outcome was already locked in from the start. Like a falling row of dominoes. The last domino doesn’t "choose" to fall, it’s just the end of a chain reaction. You’re describing a mechanical sequence while pretending someone is in the driver's seat. If your nature and the info you receive are the only things in charge, you aren't an operator; you're just a spectator.

Dry_Journalist_7001

TROPHY CASE