User Controls
Ayy lmao, a friend of mine broke both arms while mountain biking.
-
2017-08-15 at 11:20 PM UTC
-
2017-08-15 at 11:23 PM UTC
-
2017-08-15 at 11:37 PM UTCOh and to top off the epic pentapost
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I'm also not willing to get in a huge discussion on my phone but the main point I would want to diacuss is that you define free will in a completely different way that basically ignores the problem of free will. How much is there to discuss? We are talking about two different thing that you just happen to use the same word for.
You are not stupid enough to say this out of ignorance, so the most likely explanation is simply that you are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Because it is literally not a matter of me "defining free will in a different way". I'm asking you to specifically outline what you mean by free will at all. You keep insisting that X is not free will, but you refuse to specifically explain what exactly free will is that X is not.
I have literally given you every impetus needed to give me an answer if you have any:
- I told you my definition
- I told you how it is meaningful
- I told you how it functions in our model of reality and decision making
- I contested that definition is the one that is meaningful or makes sense, because of the above reasons, and constructed it as a falsifiable claim.
- I asked you for your specific definition
- I presented you thought experiments that precisely fit your general definition (something along the lines of free will being unaffected by outside influences and not predetermined) and asked if those constituted free will to you.
- I demonstrated these thought experiments as being compatible with my definition to show how my specific definition can absolutely stick to the general definition you gave.
- I asked you even how your implied idea of free will would work, or what it would "look like".
- I asked you if your idea of free will would be compatible with the concept of simple predisposition (e.g. a personality), and if not, how it would work or be distinct from simple randomness.
I have given you all the tools to fucking commit to a definition. I have given you all the tools to even under a definition, so I can come up with a one so you don't have to.
The ball is squarely in your court and has been for weeks,, if not months. And for the record, 90% of the shit I post here, including this post and all of the ones in the Free Will thread were made by phone.
Until you can get your dick unjammed from your ass and actually respond rather than lying about the nature of the discussion, the only thing I can do is continue to show you how my specific description is the one that fits the general definition of free will the best, and state the fact that I haven't seen you, nor anyone else, give a better one.
Your move, faggot. -
2017-08-15 at 11:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Oh and to top off the epic pentapost
You are not stupid enough to say this out of ignorance, so the most likely explanation is simply that you are disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Because it is literally not a matter of me "defining free will in a different way". I'm asking you to specifically outline what you mean by free will at all. You keep insisting that X is not free will, but you refuse to specifically explain what exactly free will is that X is not.
I have literally given you every impetus needed to give me an answer if you have any:
- I told you my definition
- I told you how it is meaningful
- I told you how it functions in our model of reality and decision making
- I contested that definition is the one that is meaningful or makes sense, because of the above reasons, and constructed it as a falsifiable claim.
- I asked you for your specific definition
- I presented you thought experiments that precisely fit your general definition (something along the lines of free will being unaffected by outside influences and not predetermined) and asked if those constituted free will to you.
- I demonstrated these thought experiments as being compatible with my definition to show how my specific definition can absolutely stick to the general definition you gave.
- I asked you even how your implied idea of free will would work, or what it would "look like".
- I asked you if your idea of free will would be compatible with the concept of simple predisposition (e.g. a personality), and if not, how it would work or be distinct from simple randomness.
I have given you all the tools to fucking commit to a definition. I have given you all the tools to even under a definition, so I can come up with a one so you don't have to.
The ball is squarely in your court and has been for weeks,, if not months. And for the record, 90% of the shit I post here, including this post and all of the ones in the Free Will thread were made by phone.
Until you can get your dick unjammed from your ass and actually respond rather than lying about the nature of the discussion, the only thing I can do is continue to show you how my specific description is the one that fits the general definition of free will the best, and state the fact that I haven't seen you, nor anyone else, give a better one.
Your move, faggot.
Didn't read -
2017-08-15 at 11:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I just ordered this to be sent to his place:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1476764522
Funny friend. -
2017-08-16 at 1:45 AM UTC
-
2017-08-16 at 2:46 AM UTCGive him hell until he heals.
-
2017-08-16 at 2:55 AM UTC
-
2017-08-16 at 3 AM UTCshove him down a pair of steps with a guard rail
-
2017-08-16 at 6:50 AM UTCGuaranteed Obbe The Bitch doesn't reply
-
2017-08-16 at 10:18 AM UTC
-
2017-08-16 at 10:35 AM UTC
-
2017-08-16 at 10:57 AM UTCI already told you that I used the classical / libertarian idea of free will, and that compatibilism just ignores the problem of freewill related to it.
-
2017-08-16 at 11:42 AM UTCHow did he crash?
-
2017-08-16 at 11:46 AM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind I already told you that I used the classical / libertarian idea of free will, and that compatibilism just ignores the problem of freewill related to it.
I already addressed this 6 billion times. What, specifically, does the "classical/libertarian" idea of free will entail that would make it distinct from compatibilism?
For example, what would a "truly free" being's decision between A and B look like, and how would that be any different than what we have now? -
2017-08-16 at 11:59 AM UTCCompatibilism defines freewill basically like a court of law would, as in a person was not locked in chains or forced at gunpoint to do something. I don't have any problems with this definition except that it completely ignores the more interesting problem of freewill that classical / libertarian freewill faces. The sense that we are absolutely free, that our wants and desires are ours to choose and that our choices and behaviors are not driven by anything. If I recall correctly, you agree with me that we do not have that freedom. Redefining freewill to ignore this intuitive sense of freedom that all people experience regardless of whether or not it is an illusion is merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
-
2017-08-16 at 12:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Open Your Mind Compatibilism defines freewill basically like a court of law would, as in a person was not locked in chains or forced at gunpoint to do something. I don't have any problems with this definition except that it completely ignores the more interesting problem of freewill that classical / libertarian freewill faces. The sense that we are absolutely free, that our wants and desires are ours to choose and that our choices and behaviors are not driven by anything. If I recall correctly, you agree with me that we do not have that freedom. Redefining freewill to ignore this intuitive sense of freedom that all people experience regardless of whether or not it is an illusion is merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
Nigger, do you have athletic abilities problems?
Compatibilism defines free will as acting under your own motive, even if that motive is predetermined.
You're telling me that the "libertarian" idea of free will is that our choices are driven by nothing. I'll ignore how retarded this definition is, as it is purposely set up to be knocked down. We can both agree that this is impossible, but my contention is that this is a meaningless statement unless you can specifically describe how such a thing can exist, because the definition you've given is similar to saying "make me a blue circle on white paper with red ink".
To boil it down, I'll give you the same questions I did in the other thread:
#1, by the above definition of free will, do you think that a truly random number generator is "free"? -
2017-08-16 at 12:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon I already addressed this 6 billion times. What, specifically, does the "classical/libertarian" idea of free will entail that would make it distinct from compatibilism?
For example, what would a "truly free" being's decision between A and B look like, and how would that be any different than what we have now?
I have a book called evangelicals vs liberals..you might like it. -
2017-08-16 at 12:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by mashlehash I have a book called evangelicals vs liberals..you might like it.
I've already read it. Interesting read, but it doesn't really address my question on the level it needs to be. Unless he grants that pure randomness is true "free will", the definition makes no sense.
.I lose the question again, how would. A truly free being pick between A or B? What if we ran that test 100 times?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-16 at 12:17 PM UTCI haven't read it, admittedly. I basically stole it from the hospital.
Thanks for the insight.
