Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:03 am
But if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN, then just PROVIDE us with THE EXAMPLE of the TIME when they 'chose', WITHOUT any prior event nor state of the Universe.
Now, if one wants to CLAIM that they CAN 'choose' WITHOUT taking into account ANY prior event nor state of the Universe, like "bahman" does, then, AGAIN, just provide ANY example of WHEN this took place. ("bahman" has FAILED EVERY time when asked to PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE.)
SEE, WHEN ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE PROOF is PROVIDED, then absolutely EVERY one could AGREE WITH and ACCEPT what is being CLAIMED.
I hear you, and fair enough, of course. But then, how in words on a screen (or otherwise, though especially here) could one possibly say something like...
Well, I was having an argument with my son over the state of his room. He told me I know nothing. I was angry. I felt my response was important and....
I chose from between three options. Nothing that happened before this moment DECIDED what I would choose.......
You just did it. That is; you have, so far, expressed in words, on a screen, what you wanted to say.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
One can say 'I FELT AND KNEW' the pure freedom of being able to choose any of those three options and not even my personality and desires affected my chocie.
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.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
But how does one, via a computer screen convey this. And why should others believe it, this feeling, this knowing?
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.
And I am NEVER going to dispute how one FELT or KNEW some 'thing', NOR when one says they FELT and KNEW that 'thing'. But, if people are NOT Truly OPEN, then we can NOT LOOK AT and SEE the FULL Picture here.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
And how can we rule it out?
I am CERTAINLY NOT going to rule out what 'you' FELT and KNEW.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
And this was just my hypothetical example for a hypothetical free will of that kind believer. Perhaps they would 'demonstrate' in some other way. But what words on a screen could constitute a proof?
THE WORDS of what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE.
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
There seems to be a radical optimism - less so on your part I would think - that we can demonstrate things here.
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 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.
I would suggest that INSTEAD of introducing terms like 'radical optimism' while NOT PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOF, and they do have ACTUAL PROOF, then they just 'demonstrate' THAT PROOF. So,
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
I see in these forums a lot of
Oh, yeah, prove it then type challenges, implicit and explicit.
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. Otherwise, ANY one could SAY and CLAIM absolutely ANY thing, and then NOT have to back up and support what they SAY and CLAIM, with absolutely ANY thing. (Which REALLY is about more or less what ACTUALLY takes place here anyway).
And, this is a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, what did you EXPECT to SEE here?
Were you REALLY NOT EXPECTING to SEE people's views and claims being CHALLENGED?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
First proofs have more to do with things like math and symbolic logic.
So, to you, do 'proofs' have absolutely ANY thing AT ALL to do with what is SAID, WRITTEN, and CLAIMED, especially here in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM?
If no, then okay.
But if yes, then HOW MUCH do 'proofs' have to do with 'things' like WORDS and CLAIMS, in a philosophy forum?
Also, what does 'symbolic logic' go back to, if NOT the words that get used?
Numbers can, literally, speak for themselves, but what does 'symbolic logic' speak for if NOT words and/or language?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am
But further it seems like a misunderstanding of things like how we learn and don't learn and then what this medium is capable of.
What is the 'it' word here in reference to, EXACTLY?