compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:03 am
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:40 am

But "free will" is more than just "the ability to choose."
And this here is EXACTLY WHY this discussion about 'free will' AND 'determinism' has been going on for SO LONG and WILL continue to go on for SO LONG as well.

ONLY WHEN A definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will this DISCUSSION be RESOLVED, ONCE, and FOR ALL.
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:40 am It is "the ability to choose" freely, irrespective of any prior event or state of the universe.
That is the MISCONCEPTION, and/or if that is the INTERPRETATION one wants to HAVE and HOLD for the term 'free will', the OBVIOUSLY one can EITHER 'choose':

WITHOUT any prior event or state of the Universe, OR, they can NOT.

If one wants to CLAIM that they can NOT, then so be it.
When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words.
Okay, so by YOUR definition of 'free will' it is OBVIOUS that 'free will' could NOT and thus does NOT exist. Which MEANS, conveniently, that what you were ALREADY BELIEVING was true IS ACTUALLY true, (after all). That is; ONLY 'determinism' exists.

HOWEVER, what I mean by the term 'free will' IS DIFFERENT from what you mean, and therefore 'free will' DOES EXIST.

Which then ultimately MEANS 'we' are BACK to, AGAIN, ARGUING over this philosophical discussion and will continue to do so FOREVER MORE.

If EACH person is going to explain their OWN definition/s for the words being used, then human beings will NOT evolve and GET OVER and PAST where they are STUCK, and are LOCKED INTO, where they are, in the days when this is being written.
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am And what I say in the following regarding that word should be viewed in light of that definition, and no one else's.
And what i, and EVERY one else says, in the following, regarding that word should be viewed in light of those MANY DIFFERENT definition, and NO one else's.

But the ABSURDITY and LUDICROUSNESS of this CLAIM speaks for itself.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:03 am

And this here is EXACTLY WHY this discussion about 'free will' AND 'determinism' has been going on for SO LONG and WILL continue to go on for SO LONG as well.

ONLY WHEN A definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will this DISCUSSION be RESOLVED, ONCE, and FOR ALL.



That is the MISCONCEPTION, and/or if that is the INTERPRETATION one wants to HAVE and HOLD for the term 'free will', the OBVIOUSLY one can EITHER 'choose':

WITHOUT any prior event or state of the Universe, OR, they can NOT.

If one wants to CLAIM that they can NOT, then so be it.
When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words.
Okay, so by YOUR definition of 'free will' it is OBVIOUS that 'free will' could NOT and thus does NOT exist. Which MEANS, conveniently, that what you were ALREADY BELIEVING was true IS ACTUALLY true, (after all). That is; ONLY 'determinism' exists.

HOWEVER, what I mean by the term 'free will' IS DIFFERENT from what you mean, and therefore 'free will' DOES EXIST.

Which then ultimately MEANS 'we' are BACK to, AGAIN, ARGUING over this philosophical discussion and will continue to do so FOREVER MORE.
No. In essence, it suggests that you are "arguing" about something entirely different—something that I find irrelevant and boring.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:03 am

And this here is EXACTLY WHY this discussion about 'free will' AND 'determinism' has been going on for SO LONG and WILL continue to go on for SO LONG as well.

ONLY WHEN A definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, THEN, and ONLY THEN, will this DISCUSSION be RESOLVED, ONCE, and FOR ALL.



That is the MISCONCEPTION, and/or if that is the INTERPRETATION one wants to HAVE and HOLD for the term 'free will', the OBVIOUSLY one can EITHER 'choose':

WITHOUT any prior event or state of the Universe, OR, they can NOT.

If one wants to CLAIM that they can NOT, then so be it.
When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words.
Okay, so by YOUR definition of 'free will' it is OBVIOUS that 'free will' could NOT and thus does NOT exist. Which MEANS, conveniently, that what you were ALREADY BELIEVING was true IS ACTUALLY true, (after all). That is; ONLY 'determinism' exists.
Yes, as most people discuss this type of free will. Its definition is the one that is most widely acknowledged. Any alternative definition that considerably deviates from the accepted one refers to something entirely different.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:29 am You just did it. That is; you have, so far, expressed in words, on a screen, what you wanted to say.
Were you convinced. I didn't say I couldn't express myself and there are many things I can manage to say. But to prove ontological truths by writing on a screen, that's the part I am skeptical about.
Now you could say and write 'this', on a screen, as you just did, but that in NO WAY, well not from my perspective anyway, even implies nor comes even remotely close to providing ACTUAL PROOF that 'you' made a 'choice' WITHOUT taking into account absolutely ANY prior event nor state of the Universe.
I beleive it's pretty clear from my post that I know that I didn't prove it. In fact that was my point.
Maybe if you SHOWED us what the ACTUAL 'choice' WAS, which you made, that might help us SEE 'things' MORE CLEARLY here. But, if you do not want to do that, then it makes it MUCH HARDER for us to FULLY SEE and UNDERSTAND what this 'pure freedom' is, EXACTLY, which you FELT and KNEW.
I chose to say: let's talk about this tomorrow.
So, now it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that 'you' WERE taking into account prior events or states of the Universe, and thus you did NOT make that 'choice', freely, irrespective of any prior event or state of the universe.

But, considering that this is NOT the definition of 'free will', according to "bigmike", none of this REALLY matters now ANYWAY.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am I doubt that that brings it any closer to a proof.
From my perspective, i have NOT YET observed absolutely ANY thing, which could even begin to bring closer ANY PROOF that one has the ability to choose', freely, irrespective of absolutely ANY prior event AT ALL, nor of absolutely ANY prior state of the Universe AT ALL.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am Could you give an example of what I chose to do that would bring it closer to a proof.
From my perspective hitherto there is absolutely NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe that could provide proof for the CLAIM that one has the ability to choose, ABSOLUTELY FREELY, irrespective of absolutely ANY prior event.

To me, introducing a definition of some 'thing', which could not even be a POSSIBILITY, let alone an ACTUALITY, is just ABSURD in the MOST EXTREME, and is just MORE PROOF of how those with BELIEFS will say just about ANY thing in order to 'try to' back up and support THEIR BELIEFS and CLAIMS.

Besides the Fact that I have absolutely NO example to back up and support what you are LOOKING FOR here, I have ACTUALLY ASKED who CLAIM 'that' to PROVIDE examples or even just AN example, and as of YET absolutely NONE have come forward.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am I did notice you said maybe. I just doubt there is any example of a choice that would bring it closer to being a proof.
I said, 'maybe', BECAUSE I am OPEN to the Fact that one MIGHT exist. But, from what I have observed hitherto I have NOT YET SEEN ANY, nor have I seen absolutely ANY thing that even comes close.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am
ALL of us who have FELT and KNEW 'things', at times, would AGREE WITH this 'feeling' and this 'knowing'. But WITHOUT CONCRETE EXAMPLES we, literally, have absolutely NOTHING to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

I CERTAINLY do NOT dispute that you FELT and KNEW some 'pure freedom', which 'you' had, of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my choice.
Let me be clear. I don't actually believe in free will. Nor do I disbelieve it. I cam using believe in the way I use the word. I don't know if there is free will or not.
Define what the term 'free will' means, or refers to, to you, exactly, then we can FIND OUT and SEE if 'it' exists or not.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am I am skeptical that words on a screen could prove something like this.
Okay, so what other ways do you gain PROOF?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am
THE WORDS of what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.
Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen?
YES, and VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY I will add.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.
First we NEED to AGREE UPON and ACCEPT the definition of the words being used.

Once this has been achieved, then the PROOF just 'falls into place', as some would say.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am And not just for free will, but all sorts of things.
Like what sorts of 'things', for example?

I will suggest, AGAIN, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what they WANT to CLAIM, especially on a philosophy forum, BEFORE they make the CLAIM public, then it would be BETTER for them to NOT make the CLAIM AT ALL if they do NOT want to be CHALLENGED nor QUESTIONED over the CLAIM.
Oh, ok. I think speculation and presentation of beliefs can be useful. Of course people should expect to be challenged. If they don't want to be challenged, yes, it if probably better for them, given their preference to not do it.
If those of 'you', with the so-called 'radical optimism' that 'you' CAN demonstrate 'things' here, THEN just demonstrate 'things' here if, and WHEN, 'you' are CHALLENGED over them.

Oh, and by the way, it was 'you' who was the one just ASKING, "But HOW can 'we' demonstrate PROOF here, on a screen?" and saying it like it was NOT possible.

If one HAS the PROOF, then it is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to 'demonstrate' those 'things' here.
But if one is correct, one may not have proof.[/quote]

But if one does NOT YET have the proof, then HOW do they KNOW they are correct?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am Or one may have a way of demonstrating it, but not via words on a screen.


VERY True. And if this was the case, then by just using words, on a screen, they could express what is ACTUALLY True. Like, for example, that they can NOT demonstrate 'it' with words on a screen but they can demonstrate 'it' in some OTHER way.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am One might be able to say follow these processes for 4 years and you will find you all think X is the case. As one example.
VERY True, but after fours years of doing some things I would hope and want to obtain MORE than just 'think some 'thing'.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am I could not, via words on a screen, prove to you that you could in fact ride a bike despite some physical problem or other. We might need to meet.
OBVIOUSLY, and things like this were NEVER in dispute.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am
But, if one does NOT have the ACTUAL 'things' NEEDED in order to back up and support what one SAYS or CLAIMS here, then this makes it MUCH HARDER for them to 'demonstrate' THE PROOF.
Sure, I don't think I've denied that.
Great, and I have NOT been denying what you seem to be thinking I was either.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am
This is A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, WHERE, from my perspective, absolutely EVERY word that is SAID and WRITTEN here NEEDS to be ABLE to be BACKED UP and SUPPORTED WITH ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Prove that sentence.
What part of the sentence do you want PROOF for, EXACTLY?

I just said that 'that' was FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, what is SAID and WRITTEN, ESPECIALLY in a philosophy forum, NEEDS to be ABLE to be backed up and support, in one way or ANOTHER, with ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF. Otherwise, people can just SAY and CLAIM absolutely ANY thing and NOT have to be held accountable for what they SAY and CLAIM.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:36 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.
I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.
Let us NOT forget that the so-called 'rules of determinism' are VERY subjective, just like the definitions of the terms 'free will' and 'determinism' are ALSO very subjective.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 am
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:36 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.
I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.
The key word in that is rules. Can one demonstrate that the rules that govern those processes are universal.
Maybe.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 am Can one prove, via words on a screen, that they hold for all things in all places at all times?
Yes.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 am The funny thing is you also mentioned physics. And while some conclusions in physics were done via thought experiences, in general

THERE WERE EXPERIMENTS.

And those experiments were not words on a screen.
But HOW were those experiments SHARED?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 am And people needed to DO THOSE EXPERIMENTS themselves to demonstrate over time, that certain assertions are very strongly supported and can be moved into the category THEORY.
And HOW were the ways to DO THOSE EXPERIMENTS 'shared'?

LOL Are you REALLY just talking about only moving into the 'theory' stage?

I was talking about and referring to the ACTUAL, FOR EVER MORE, IRREFUTABLE stage of KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 am Note: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:52 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:36 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:20 am Could you prove either determinism or free will with words on a screen? If so, could you lead by example and show me how this is done. Or whatever you think is the ontological case.
I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.
Let us NOT forget that the so-called 'rules of determinism' are VERY subjective, just like the definitions of the terms 'free will' and 'determinism' are ALSO very subjective.
By "rules of physics" I meant "laws of physics" They are by no stretch of the imagination subjective.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:59 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 amNote: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.
Naturally, you will fail if you take the syntax as proof of anything. But every first-order language also has semantics, or the explanation of what the syntactic symbols imply. Therefore, assuming the words have meaning (a definition), it follows that you can prove or refute statements using words on a screen as long as the reader is aware of both the syntax (symbols and grammar) and semantics.
I think refuting an argument is easier.
If an argument is NOT sound AND valid, then it is self-refuted.

But, if an argument is sound AND valid, then it is IRREFUTABLE, FOR EVER MORE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm But I am not saying one cannot prove anything using words on a screen, though, again, I think 'prove' is generally the wrong word. Proof for example is not used that much in science.
This is because 'science' does NOT look at what IS ACTUALLY true and instead only looks at what COULD BE or MIGHT BE true.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm It's inductive. You get a best explanation, a predponderance of evidence, you get a theory. Something moves from hypothesiss, to well supported hypothesis and ends up as theory or part of theory. Theory. IOW something that can be revised.
Or in other words, just fundamentally and essentially only a GUESS or an ASSUMPTION, ONLY. Which could obviously be fully False, Wrong, or Incorrect, or partly False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Again, 'science' only LOOKS AT what COULD BE true, right, or correct, and NEVER looks at what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, and/or Correct.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm But ALL THAT is still too general. I was saying that trying to prove something ontological is online is true is extremely unlikely.
But 'trying to' prove things is VERY DIFFERENT from proving things.

There are countless times of 'trying to' prove things are true online, so this being 'extremely unlikely' is False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

However, actually getting to the point of proving things are true online is far 'less likely'. But this is NOT because this is not likely possible. It just depends on who and on what is being involved.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm Or even if we drop what I think is the wrong word 'prove' and say something like demonstrate or make a solid case for, I still think this is very unlikely.
WHY?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:43 pm You might flummox someone. You might make a great argument. But to somehow rule out beyond a reasonable doubt that you are incorrect...nah.
If one just formulates a sound AND valid argument, then that is IRREFUTABLE anyway.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:50 pm This is A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, WHERE, from my perspective, absolutely EVERY word that is SAID and WRITTEN here NEEDS to be ABLE to be BACKED UP and SUPPORTED WITH ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Prove that sentence.
[/quote]
What part of the sentence do you want PROOF for, EXACTLY?
The sentence. A word is not something that can be proved. If you think it can, peachy. But let's focus on the sentence please.
I just said that 'that' was FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
OK prove to me that it is from your persepctive and you weren't lying or confused about your persepctive. Prove it.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:59 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:42 amNote: I am not arguing that they do not hold. I am saying that PROOFS on a computer screen is a near impossible criterion to demonstrate somethng is the case. And PROOFS have more to do with math and symbolic logic, though that's a secondary issue.
Naturally, you will fail if you take the syntax as proof of anything. But every first-order language also has semantics, or the explanation of what the syntactic symbols imply. Therefore, assuming the words have meaning (a definition), it follows that you can prove or refute statements using words on a screen as long as the reader is aware of both the syntax (symbols and grammar) and semantics.
"Proof" is not the goal here. It's a question of showing something to be reasonable or unreasonable.
For example, free-willers act within a context, within a time and place. They physical limitations. They have had specific experiences in their lives, which produced motivations and preferences.
If one wants to use the word or term "free-willers", like 'it' is some ACTUAL 'thing', then I suggest that they SHOW some 'thing' to be REASONABLE. And, to me, the word 'reasonable' refers to some 'thing' that is able to be 'reasoned', logically AND irrefutably, and NOT just in SOME way.
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm Yet, they seem to think that they overcome these motivations and preferences when making a decision.
Is that reasonable? [/quote]

Are 'your reasons', reasonable?
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm Another example is Bahman. He thinks that if you don't know the result of a choice then you are choosing freely.
"bahman" can NOT back up NOR support what 'it' SAYS and CLAIMS here, so there is NO REAL use in LOOKING INTO "bahman".
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm Let's say that he is in a room with 3 doors (red, white, black) and he doesn't know what is behind the doors.

He will have a psychological preference for one color and he will choose based on that.
Does one HAVE TO HAVE a psychological preference for A color?

If yes, then WHEN, EXACTLY, does this so-called 'psychological preference for a color' come into existence for a human being?

Also, choosing a door, in that example, can NOT be done 'freely', in the sense/meaning of 'irrespective of prior events or states of the Universe'.
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm His preference will depend on the culture where he grew up and his other experiences.
EXACTLY.
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm It's not a free choice.
Luckily then the 'free' word in the 'free word' phrase does NOT refer to this kind of 'free choice'.
phyllo wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:07 pm Is his belief that he is making a free choice reasonable?
OF COURSE NOT.

If that kind of 'free choice' was ACTUALLY able to be 'reasoned', logically and irrefutably, then it would have been REASONED OUT ALREADY.

But, as "bahman", itself, is living PROOF, that kind of 'free choice' is NOT able to occur, because if it could, then it would have ALREADY, and if it had ALREADY OCCURRED, then one could just PROVIDE the example of WHERE and WHEN it HAPPENED so the rest of 'us' could LOOK AT and SEE 'it'. And, if 'it' did ALREADY HAPPEN, and the PROOF of WAS PROVIDED, then NO one could REFUTE 'this', logically and irrefutably.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:27 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am

When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words.
Okay, so by YOUR definition of 'free will' it is OBVIOUS that 'free will' could NOT and thus does NOT exist. Which MEANS, conveniently, that what you were ALREADY BELIEVING was true IS ACTUALLY true, (after all). That is; ONLY 'determinism' exists.

HOWEVER, what I mean by the term 'free will' IS DIFFERENT from what you mean, and therefore 'free will' DOES EXIST.

Which then ultimately MEANS 'we' are BACK to, AGAIN, ARGUING over this philosophical discussion and will continue to do so FOREVER MORE.
No. In essence, it suggests that you are "arguing" about something entirely different—something that I find irrelevant and boring.
And, as I have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED True what 'you' are 'trying to' ARGUE for is NOT even a POSSIBILITY of being Wrong.

What 'you' have done here is provide a definition of some 'thing', which could NOT even possibly to exist, let alone be actually existing, and then just CLAIM, "See, I am Right". Which is PURE STUPIDITY and ABSURDITY in the EXTREME. NOT to mention TOTALLY BORING and Truly INAPPROPRIATE for just about ANYWHERE, let alone in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM of all places.

It is the MOST BORING and IRRELEVANT way of arguing, let alone in regards for having Truly OPEN discussions.

What you are so-called and laughably 'arguing against' is a COMPLETE IMPOSSIBILITY.

So, what this MEANS IS; "bigmike" is RIGHT about 'determinism' being the ONLY thing that exists here BECAUSE so-called "bigmike" has DEFINED 'free will' in such a way that it could NEVER have even existed anyway. In other words, 'you', "bigmike", are just 'arguing' FOR YOUR BELIEF, by 'arguing' AGAINST a RED HERRING, which you have thrown in here, intentionally or unintentionally.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:48 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:10 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:41 am

When I give a definition, it's not up to other people to agree or not agree with it. It's a sentence that explains what I mean by a word or group of words.
Okay, so by YOUR definition of 'free will' it is OBVIOUS that 'free will' could NOT and thus does NOT exist. Which MEANS, conveniently, that what you were ALREADY BELIEVING was true IS ACTUALLY true, (after all). That is; ONLY 'determinism' exists.
Yes, as most people discuss this type of free will.
Well if ANY of these alleged MOST people are STILL discussing this type of 'free will' as thought 'it' exists or are fighting/arguing against this 'type of free will', then those ones are MORE STUPID and CLOSED than appeared at first glance.
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:48 pm Its definition is the one that is most widely acknowledged.
So, if it was true that A definition, which could NOT even exist, is the MOST WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED, then those who ACKNOWLEDGE this UNWORKABLE and NONEXISTABLE definition must be MORE CRAZY than I first REALIZED.

And the most laughable part of this is that human beings have been ARGUING and FIGHTING over an UNWORKABLE DEFINITION for hundreds and hundreds of years, hitherto when this was being written.
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:48 pm Any alternative definition that considerably deviates from the accepted one refers to something entirely different.
Yes, and 'free will' is ACTUALLY something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to what 'you', and "others" IMAGINE 'it' to be.

And, when, and ONLY WHEN, the definition of 'free will' is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED, and which WORKS IN WITH and FITS IN WITH EVERY thing else PERFECTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, with 'this definition' be thee Truly ACCEPTED one.

See, what WAS 'accepted' back in the days when this WAS being written, is CERTAINLY NOT necessarily what is ACCEPTED going forward and furthermore.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:11 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:52 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:36 am

I don't understand how anybody could type something on their home computer, hit the submit button, and then have the text that they typed show up on the screen of your computer if it weren't for the rules of physics and determinism.
Let us NOT forget that the so-called 'rules of determinism' are VERY subjective, just like the definitions of the terms 'free will' and 'determinism' are ALSO very subjective.
By "rules of physics" I meant "laws of physics" They are by no stretch of the imagination subjective.
LOL Absolutely NO even thought about the 'physics' word here, LET ALONE even MENTIONED nor SUGGESTED the 'physics' word absolutely ANYWHERE here.

So, what 'you' SAID and WROTE here is COMPLETELY MOOT.

But, if you wanted to MENTION what you have just here now, then I suggest NOT quoting me IN ANY WAY whatsoever. That way you will NOT appear as though you have completely and utterly MISREAD what I have ACTUALLY WROTE here, or MISHEARD what I have ACTUALLY SAID, here.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: compatibilism

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:23 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:50 pm This is A PHILOSOPHY FORUM, WHERE, from my perspective, absolutely EVERY word that is SAID and WRITTEN here NEEDS to be ABLE to be BACKED UP and SUPPORTED WITH ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF.
Prove that sentence.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:23 pm
What part of the sentence do you want PROOF for, EXACTLY?
The sentence. A word is not something that can be proved.
Do you BELIEVE that 'a word' can NOT be proved?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:23 pm If you think it can, peachy.
Is this grammatically correct?

If yes, then does it following on logically from a preceding sentence or does it logically precede another sentence?

if yes, then which one/s and why?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:23 pm But let's focus on the sentence please.
Okay.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:23 pm
I just said that 'that' was FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
OK prove to me that it is from your persepctive and you weren't lying or confused about your persepctive. Prove it.
When 'you' say, "Prove it", what does the 'it' word refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Also I NEED you to PROVE that you have UNDERSTOOD what I SAID and WROTE here, FIRST. From what you have been writing here you appear to be VERY, VERY CONFUSED and LOST.

Are you ABLE to prove this?
BigMike
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:57 pm
BigMike wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:11 pm
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:52 pm

Let us NOT forget that the so-called 'rules of determinism' are VERY subjective, just like the definitions of the terms 'free will' and 'determinism' are ALSO very subjective.
By "rules of physics" I meant "laws of physics" They are by no stretch of the imagination subjective.
LOL Absolutely NO even thought about the 'physics' word here, LET ALONE even MENTIONED nor SUGGESTED the 'physics' word absolutely ANYWHERE here.

So, what 'you' SAID and WROTE here is COMPLETELY MOOT.

But, if you wanted to MENTION what you have just here now, then I suggest NOT quoting me IN ANY WAY whatsoever. That way you will NOT appear as though you have completely and utterly MISREAD what I have ACTUALLY WROTE here, or MISHEARD what I have ACTUALLY SAID, here.
Does your mom know you're on a website for grown ups?
Post Reply