You crack me up!!
Is that the ROYAL WE??
Of course your majesty..
To philosophical community.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 5:28 pmTo WHOM, EXACTLY?bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:13 pmMy definition is pretty fine and correct.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:40 am
AND, 'wiki', just like 'you', "bahman", as well as the rest of 'you', adult human beings, STILL have NOT YET worked out and SOLVED, what has been PUZZLING 'you', human beings, for centuries now, (when this was being written). So, OBVIOUSLY, there is some 'thing' Wrong or AMISS here, correct?
Could 'that', what is Wrong or AMISS here, JUST BE the definition/s that 'you', human beings, have been CHOOSING and USING?
Or, is that JUST NOT a possibility, in your OWN 'little worlds'?
A computer also has the ability to choose. Have you ever thought of any difference between you and a computer?Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:40 amThe ABILITY TO CHOOSE.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for asking.
See, with this definition, BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' 'play a part in Life'. With BOTH being ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, PEFECTLY. And, which REMOVES ANY form of DISAGREEING and DISAGREEMENT. When then ALSO RESOLVES QUESTIONING and the back and forth BICKERING and "ARGUING" that has gone on for too long now, when this was being written.
No, I have no intention to prove others are wrong and I am right.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:40 amBUT you are, OBVIOUSLY, GOING FOR the 'bias', which you LIKE. That is; you LIKE to CHOOSE the option that you think or BELIEVE would PROVE the "other" wrong, and 'you' right. Which WAS done on the HOPE of being ABLE TO back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:13 pmNo, I am able to pick up an option that I don't like which means that I can go against the bias.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 am
Because you are ABLE to choose one, is NEVER in doubt, and has NEVER been DISPUTED by ANY one. Well not that I am YET AWARE OF.
However, it is because of 'your' WANT, which is what EVERY one here that is DISAGREEING or DISPUTING 'you' is QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING 'you' ON and ABOUT.
WHY 'you' WANTED 'that one', (whatever that might be), is what 'you' are being TOLD IS 'the bias'. And, as you have been CONTINUALLY TOLD and INFORMED OF ALSO, it is 'the bias' (the 'want' for 'that one'), which 'you' OBVIOUSLY have, which has just as OBVIOUSLY come from pre-existing conditions that 'you', (or more correctly 'that body') has OBVIOUSLY previously experienced, which is WHY 'that choice' of 'yours' was NOT a 'free-will' choice. That is; going on your OWN definition of 'free will' here.
Do 'you' UNDERSTAND this now?
You did NOT 'just choose' the OTHER option for absolutely NO reason AT ALL. 'you' CHOSE the one, which 'you' SUPPOSEDLY do NOT like, to WIN 'the argument' here. 'To WIN' WAS and IS 'your' BIAS here.
It is very clear to me that you don't understand the difference.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 amYES.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:13 pmDo you understand the difference between the situation and the decision?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 am
The reason WHY 'you' WANT 'to invest', is A 'bias'. Thus, NOT 'free will', according to your OWN definition of 'free will'.
The reason WHY 'you' ended up CHOOSING 'the investment', which 'you' finally did, would have been based on AGAIN, your WANT and thus your 'biases'. Thus, NOT 'free will' AGAIN, according to your OWN definition of 'free will' here.
The SOLE REASON WHY 'you' ended up CHOOSING 'the investment' strategy, literally, of YOUR CHOICE, was BECAUSE 'you' thought or BELIEVED it would be the BEST 'one' for 'you' to OBTAIN MORE monetary gains.
So, YOUR BIASES came into PLAY. Thus, 'determinism' AT WORK here and NOT 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.
Have you been UNDERSTANDING what I have been SAYING and WRITING here?
Have you ever doubted when you wanted to make a decision?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 amCHOOSING BETWEEN A OR B, is NOT a REAL ACTUAL EXAMPLE that 'you' have ACTUALLY DONE in Life.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:13 pmRead OP.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 am
What 'you' do NOT 'like' IS what 'you' do NOT 'want'. Thus, the DECISION 'you' MAKE on what 'you' do NOT 'like' NOR 'want' here is based on 'determinism' and NOT on 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.
Also, and conversely, what 'you' DO 'like' IS what 'you' DO 'want'. Therefore, AGAIN, the DECISION 'you' MAKE on what 'you' DO 'like' AND 'want' here is based on 'determinism' and NOT on 'free will', from your OWN definition of 'free will' here.
PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE for 'us' to LOOK AT and SEE.
Then 'we', AT LEAST, have SOME 'thing' to DISCUSS and, literally, TALK ABOUT.
ALSO, I HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO THIS, the FIRST TIME you RESPONDED with that RIDICULOUS REMARK. You OBVIOUSLY ARE IGNORING IT, so here IT is AGAIN.
I REPLIED WITH:
As EXPECTED, 'you' RUN AWAY and/or 'try to' DEFLECT when 'you' are UNABLE TO provide absolutely ANY example AT ALL.
Providing the letters 'A' and 'B' is NOT an EXAMPLE.
I suggest 'you' PROVIDE an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' have made an ACTUAL 'unbiased' CHOICE. Until then there is, literally, NOTHING of ANY worth, in your opening post, NOR in the rest of what 'you' wrote here, to LOOK AT and SEE in regards to being able to back up and support what 'you' obviously STEADFASTLY BELIEVE and CLAIM is true.
But having 'doubt' could MEAN that I AM BIASED.
Is that the SAME 'philosophical community', which for thousands of years now, has STILL NOT YET solved the 'free will/determinism' CONUNDRUM?
A computer, by itself, is NOT 'able to' CHOOSE. A human being, however, IS.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:16 pmA computer also has the ability to choose. Have you ever thought of any difference between you and a computer?Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:40 amThe ABILITY TO CHOOSE.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for asking.
See, with this definition, BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' 'play a part in Life'. With BOTH being ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER, PEFECTLY. And, which REMOVES ANY form of DISAGREEING and DISAGREEMENT. When then ALSO RESOLVES QUESTIONING and the back and forth BICKERING and "ARGUING" that has gone on for too long now, when this was being written.
So, you create threads in a philosophy forum, and explain that you NEED to 'argue' for 'this' or for 'that', or even, "To show that free will is real ...", but now you, laughingly, 'try to' CLAIM that you have absolutely NO 'intentions' AT ALL, to 'prove' "others" are wrong and that 'you' are right.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:16 pmNo, I have no intention to prove others are wrong and I am right.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 4:40 amBUT you are, OBVIOUSLY, GOING FOR the 'bias', which you LIKE. That is; you LIKE to CHOOSE the option that you think or BELIEVE would PROVE the "other" wrong, and 'you' right. Which WAS done on the HOPE of being ABLE TO back up and support YOUR BELIEF here.
You did NOT 'just choose' the OTHER option for absolutely NO reason AT ALL. 'you' CHOSE the one, which 'you' SUPPOSEDLY do NOT like, to WIN 'the argument' here. 'To WIN' WAS and IS 'your' BIAS here.
It is very clear to me that you don't understand the difference.[/quote]
Have you ever doubted when you wanted to make a decision?Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:55 amCHOOSING BETWEEN A OR B, is NOT a REAL ACTUAL EXAMPLE that 'you' have ACTUALLY DONE in Life.
ALSO, I HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO THIS, the FIRST TIME you RESPONDED with that RIDICULOUS REMARK. You OBVIOUSLY ARE IGNORING IT, so here IT is AGAIN.
I REPLIED WITH:
As EXPECTED, 'you' RUN AWAY and/or 'try to' DEFLECT when 'you' are UNABLE TO provide absolutely ANY example AT ALL.
Providing the letters 'A' and 'B' is NOT an EXAMPLE.
I suggest 'you' PROVIDE an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of when 'you' have made an ACTUAL 'unbiased' CHOICE. Until then there is, literally, NOTHING of ANY worth, in your opening post, NOR in the rest of what 'you' wrote here, to LOOK AT and SEE in regards to being able to back up and support what 'you' obviously STEADFASTLY BELIEVE and CLAIM is true.
And this is one reason WHY 'that definition' "bahman" used here, and which has been used for centuries, HAS NEVER WORKED, and WILL NEVER WORK.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:46 pm What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.
A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:46 pm What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.
No, if you are biased then you are certain about the situation. You cannot be certain and have doubts at the same time.
You don't know what you are really talking about. Do you?Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:35 am As I have SAID ALREADY, UNTIL you PROVIDE an ACTUAL example where you think or BELIEVE that you had absolutely NO bias AT ALL, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT or GO BY.
See, EVERY time I have had 'doubt', then it was CAUSED by a 'bias'.
And, as I POINTED OUT earlier, just HAVING the ABILITY TO DECIDE does NOT FIT IN WITH your OWN definition of 'free will'. That, obviously, IS, and WAS, MY definition of 'free will', and just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that EVERY one HAS the ABILITY TO CHOOSE.
You now just have to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of where you made a decision, without ANY 'bias' AT ALL, and so PROVE that it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to DECIDE on an 'option' without ANY 'bias' AT ALL. So far you have NOT PROVED ANY thing like this.
So, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?
So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?
If ONLY 'you' KNEW "bahman". If ONLY 'you' KNEW.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:08 pmYou don't know what you are really talking about. Do you?Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 8:35 am As I have SAID ALREADY, UNTIL you PROVIDE an ACTUAL example where you think or BELIEVE that you had absolutely NO bias AT ALL, then we have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to LOOK AT or GO BY.
See, EVERY time I have had 'doubt', then it was CAUSED by a 'bias'.
And, as I POINTED OUT earlier, just HAVING the ABILITY TO DECIDE does NOT FIT IN WITH your OWN definition of 'free will'. That, obviously, IS, and WAS, MY definition of 'free will', and just as OBVIOUS is the Fact that EVERY one HAS the ABILITY TO CHOOSE.
You now just have to PROVIDE an ACTUAL example of where you made a decision, without ANY 'bias' AT ALL, and so PROVE that it is ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to DECIDE on an 'option' without ANY 'bias' AT ALL. So far you have NOT PROVED ANY thing like this.
This could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:05 pmA decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:46 pm What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.
We are talking about decisions and not God's existence. But the answer to your question is yes, you cannot have doubt and be certain at the same time.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:07 pmSo, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?
And/or are these people NOT 'biased', by THEIR BELIEFS?
So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?
This MEANS that you either are CERTAIN about your answer here, without DOUBT, or you are now DOUBTING your CLAIM here and are NOT certain.
No, it does not mean that since you are free.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:15 pmThis could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:05 pmA decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:46 pm What I dislike about Bahman’s example of a free choice is it actually removes any possibility of responsibility. If you make a choice completely at random, that is without any prior motivation, you cannot be held responsible. There was nothing you could have done to make a better choice given the same scenario.
ONCE AGAIN you have TWISTED and DISTORTED things around HOPING that they will WORK for YOUR ABSOLUTELY FIXED BELIEF here.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:28 pmWe are talking about decisions and not God's existence. But the answer to your question is yes, you cannot have doubt and be certain at the same time.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:07 pmSo, to you, those who are 'biased' that 'God exists' are CERTAIN, about that situation, AND, those who are 'biased' that 'God does NOT exist' are ALSO CERTAIN, about the situation, correct?
And/or are these people NOT 'biased', by THEIR BELIEFS?
So, this would suggest that those who are CERTAIN that 'God exists' do NOT have DOUBTS, at the same time, AND, that those who are CERTAIN that 'God does NOT exist', do NOT have DOUBTS, as the same time, ALSO, correct?
This MEANS that you either are CERTAIN about your answer here, without DOUBT, or you are now DOUBTING your CLAIM here and are NOT certain.
TWISTED and DISTORTED BABBLE, AGAIN.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:29 pmNo, it does not mean that since you are free.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jul 12, 2022 12:15 pmThis could mean one could just say, "I did NOT 'want' to kill that individual", (which they just KILLED), and to you that would be a so-called 'free, or unbiased, decision', which they would NOT be 'responsible' for, the KILLING of 'that individual'.bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 5:05 pm
A decision is either biased or not, namely a non-free decision or a free decision. The free decision looks random from a third-person perspective but there is this element of wanting from the first-person perspective which makes you responsible for your decision.