Bahman's caricature dovetails fully with to banal and impracticable libertarian idea.
But the way you constructed your post, was not incompatible with compatibilism.

How many white women do you know calling themselves black?
If she feels that way they yes, you would probably be doing her violence.

This is a rather contentious definition of free will. It certainly doesn't fit the conceptions of compatibilists. — Pierre-Normand

It is exactly that offered by compatibilists, except that the emphasis is different.
To compatibilism free will is the ability to act determinedly in the absence of constraints.

Obviously free will is nonsense.
I thank god that all my decision making is determined by me; my motivation; my learning; my experience and my situation. Anything short of that is just throwing the dice.

Is calling a trans woman a man (or vice versa --- i.e., calling a trans man a woman) a form of violence? — czahar

People like to be called by the thing they like to self identify by. Anything else is violence.

Well, you claimed, based on no argument, that fatalism isn't true. In which case General Relativity is not going to work for you, you are going to need a new theory. GR is fatalistic. — tom

You did not even begin to answer my question.
And you seem to be confusing Relativity with QM.
I shall not hold my breath. LOL

1) Magic could be deterministic. — BlueBanana

There's no such thing as magic.

No. All choices are determined too. There is no way the brain is outside reality.
— charleton

According to determinism. — BlueBanana

Determinism is a fact of the universe it does not have an opinion. It's true whether you believe it or not.

Really??
LOL!
Hardly makes him a fucking genius.
Spell Rhinoceros!!
Fuck!

If science operated under determinism it v would not be operating. — Rich

If it were not for determinism there would be no science at all, only magic.

↪charleton Precisely. North fatalism or Determinism describes nature. The Mind has choices in the direction it attempts to move. — Rich

No. All choices are determined too. There is no way the brain is outside reality.
The point I was making is that despite determinism the future is unknown and yet to unfold.

This implies fatalism which is not true. Nothing is 'already' determined in the sense it is know. Things are determined by antecedent conditions. That does not imply anything 'already'.
Unless you believe in God.
— charleton

Or you accept the consequences of General Relativity. — tom

How so?

Determinism is more than just casual. It claims everything is already determined. — Rich

This implies fatalism which is not true. Nothing is 'already' determined in the sense it is know. Things are determined by antecedent conditions. That does not imply anything 'already'.
Unless you believe in God.

Trump: "I am not a racist" — Cavacava

I am a genius. I gor 30/30 in my test.

Questions
1. What colour is blood
a, red, b blue

2. What are clothes made of?
a cloth, b shit.

3.Which is sweeter.
a sugar b shit

4. What smells worse
a peanut butter b shit

5 Which is hotter
a the sun b shit
etc....

1. What?
2. Where?
3. How?
4. Which?
5. When?
6. Who?
7. Why? — TheMadFool

1. Thingness
2. Space, and place.
3. Praxis
4. Category
5. Time.
6. Identity
7 Teleology

According to Kant. 2 & 5 take precedent over all other things being the most fundamental categories upon which our understanding of reality relies.
Without time and space the rest have no basis.
They should have evolutionary precedent.

It cannot be. As you can see question-types diversified with, roughly speaking, knowledge. The point is how unique and special must an experience or knowledge be before it gets its own question? — TheMadFool

You've shot yourself in the foot already.

In the UK Carillion has just gone pants up, leaving 20,000 people without a job and thousands of subcontractors without payment putting further jobs at risk.
The directors of Carillion, however, have managed to protect their bonuses and pensions, despite leaving debts of £1.6 billion.
150 years ago, all the directors would have ended up in debtors prison until their debts were paid.
In Brighton, austerity measures have caused the deaths of 17 rough sleepers, this winter.
Victorians values for the poor, Zimbabwean values for the rich.

I prefer to think that altruistic acts are acts that work to the advantage of one's chosen group; be that friends, family, country, race, nation, species, or ecosystem.
Helping others is what we call altruism, reducing it to self interest simply misses the point of why we have the word, as there are so many more acts that are truly selfish.
The argument that altruism is selfish is often found on the lips of truly selfish and non altruistic people, psychopaths and sociopaths.
Pay them no mind, and do them no favours.

But ''where?'' can be reduced to ''what is the location?'' It doesn't work the other way does it? — TheMadFool

Thus you invalidate your putative evolution of query!
You might as well ask "which item is food" and put THAT to the top of the list.
This ought to make us realise that language limits the way we express living praxis.
I image the 8th question is a conglomeration of all others.

No botox; no surgery; no enhancement; just lips of perfection.

I haven't thought about this too much but I've ordered them in the order in which they must've evolved. — TheMadFool

Where light? OR Where food? comes before "What" since we pretty much know what food is. When primitive tube animals sought out food, they ingested stuff before they knew what it was. Which is pretty much tied up with what is and is not food.

Are humans potentially capable of controlling reality? — Starthrower

What do you really think this means?

You need a miracle to understand what anyone says. But keep trying.

I think miracles are rightly defined as the temporary interruption of the regular functioning of things. — Agustino

You'd need a miracle to believe that nonsense

Omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are self refuting.

Yes, we should read into that that Trump is a dick head.

Guilt is a choice.
You are just beating yourself up, for no reason.

Since the 1930s, we have known that all Turing-complete architectures are EQUIVALENT. i.e. they can all perfectly emulate each other — tom

No such thing surely?
You are just bullshitting.
I asked you to show such a thing from the 1930s and you have failed.

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases.

For example, imagine a guns right activist making an argument about the right to bear arms, it is clear that they are going to favour arguments that support their position.You would expect them to select certain lines of evidence and use certain arguments. — Andrew4Handel

It's called having an opinion.

If the economy were dynamic enough and the government were not so dead against serving the people, it would be win-win to have more people. More people more tax, more growth more of everything.
But the government seems hell bent on destroying the public services like education and roads necessary to build the economy.

I explicitly made the distinction between Turing machines and physical universal computers; one being a mathematical abstraction, the other a real physical system. There were no universal computers in the 1930s.

The paper that proves that any finite physical system may be emulated on a universal computer by finite means is this one: — tom

Then what did you mean by this?
"We've known that all Turing machines are equivalent since 1930s"

↪charleton Who says? Anybody who wants to offer an opinion on the matter. Hey, it's a free country. Tell it like you think it is. You are perfectly free to offer an opinion on whether x, y, or z got more or less than they deserved. — Bitter Crank

In which case your guilt is completely self generated both internally and externally.

Who says? Who is to judge
— charleton

Click bait phrasing. People can, should, or may feel guilty for personal behavior. I don't think people should feel guilty for governmental or corporate policies they had nothing to do with and wouldn't have been able to affect, unless they were in charge of policy making, which most people are not. — Bitter Crank

No - Who says who is or is not 'deserving'.

We've known that all Turing machines are equivalent since 1930s and that all physical universal computers are equivalent since 1980s and that they are capable of emulating any physical system. — tom

What sort of mind-bendingly ridiculous statement is this?
Computers shall never fully emulate any physical system. It is logically impossible.
But since you think its already been done; please give us an example of such a machine from the 1930s??
LOL

This is the first time in my life feeling ashamed for being an American. What Trump said today was something only authoritarian dictators do. Shit like this does not fly in any type of democracy. — Posty McPostface

Are you kidding? Never heard of Vietnam?
What about supporting Saddam through nine years of war with Iran, which strengthened the Theocracy?
What about continuing to support Saudi-Arabia and Israel despite constant and persistent human rights abuses??
All this is okay but you are shamed for the first time by a obviously megalomaniac, narcissistic, moron, who was voted in as a desperate attempt to change SOMETHING in a democratic system hind-bound by corporate interests?
What about the other so-called democratically elected establishment whores; Bush, Clinton, Obama, ad nauseam?

We well-supplied people should feel guilty because we have more than people who are as deserving as we are. or maybe they are more deserving. — Bitter Crank

Who says? Who is to judge?

And it does still leave open the fact that apologies can have useful transactional values within such a “purely rational” setting. Other folk still tend to have feelings that can get hurt. It can pay to recognise that even if no moral ought is involved. — apokrisis

You mean I might apologise to spare another's feelings? Yes I might, but I don't like to do that as it gives me the moral high ground, and that's not what I am interested in. I prefer to be honest.

↪charleton You sound like you're from a top 10 worst anime villains of all time. — darthbarracuda

I too mature to take anime as some sort of moral guide. Why don't you at least TRY to grow up?

I never apologise as to do so would be an admission of guilt. If i had intentionally committed this transgression then I would not want to apologise; were it accidental then I'd have no need.

Acting mindfully, thoughtfully and consciously means never having to apologise.

I can do something that later turns out to have been regrettable. In such cases I offer an explanation. If that is not enough then the failure is with the person I am talking to and not with me.

The only way to approach this subject systematically is to consider the history.
Start with Russell's History of Western Philosophy.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Western-Philosophy-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415325056
It's short and covers quite a lot. For the bits that you get particularly interested in you can dip into, Russell's old sparing partner Copelstone. His history is somewhat longer at 11 volumes, but that can be bought separately and can also be read as PDFs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Philosophy_(Copleston)