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.