Philosophy Now Forum

"I'd say that he is never the originator of his actions. I think that the whole set of causes and effects is the originator of what a man chooses to do. If this man knows a lot about what causes what he will have a lot of choices."

As I say: irresistible force vs immovable object.

Stalemate.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:21 am "I'd say that he is never the originator of his actions. I think that the whole set of causes and effects is the originator of what a man chooses to do. If this man knows a lot about what causes what he will have a lot of choices."

As I say: irresistible force vs immovable object.

Stalemate.

I would've put identity politics beyond you, but hey

You are what you say you are. A free will.

Such crap.

If I say I'm a free will (just like the rest of you) this is nuthin' but a statement of fact.

You're just pokin' at me with a needle to get a rise.

It worked: happy?

Yeah, you are.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:15 pm If I say I'm a free will (just like the rest of you) this is nuthin' but a statement of fact.

Sure. I am a lugerwopen (just like the rest of you). That's also a statement of fact.

From my point of view anyway.

That "free will" is your identity is also a statement of fact.
But it conveys about as much information about you as the label "lugerwopen" does.
Or about as much as your name - "henry quirk" does.

Labels...

Henry Quirk, there is no difference between a Free Will choice and a random choice, except that you believe that something causes the Free Will choice. You never have said where in Henry's body this Free Will might be located. You said that the location of your Free Will is the whole of you.

Fair enough. But what happens then to your Free Will if you have to have your leg amputated and you become less than you were? Where is your Free Will if you lose your memory? Is your Free Will the whole of Henry if Henry becomes drunk and disorderly?

Try this one on: you'll find it fits you well.

pedant

#

"there is no difference between a Free Will choice and a random choice, except that you believe that something causes the Free Will choice."

Of course there is.

First, 'I' am the cause of the choice; second, my choices are done with intent.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:51 pm First, 'I' am the cause of the choice; second, my choices are done with intent.

Did you intend to kill the ants you stepped on today?

No, I intended to walk.

lil bastids were just in the way.

Unintended consequences are not synonomous with choice (by defintion, chockablock with intent).

That is: I choose to walk, I walk (what I intend), ants get smushed (unintended consequence).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:51 pm Try this one on: you'll find it fits you well.

pedant

#

"there is no difference between a Free Will choice and a random choice, except that you believe that something causes the Free Will choice."

Of course there is.

First, 'I' am the cause of the choice; second, my choices are done with intent.

not pedantry, Henry, but clear thinking and knowing the arguments.You are an amusing writer despite you only assert, not argue

"not pedantry"

'pedant' (as label) is for logik, B, not you.

#

"you only assert, not argue"

I was thinkin' the same 'bout you, B.

Henry Quirk wrote:

First, 'I' am the cause of the choice; second, my choices are done with intent.

You are necessarily the cause of your choices but you are not sufficiently the cause of your choices. Your choices are not only caused by Henry but are also caused by the weather and terrain where you live to mention only two contributory causes.If you meet a bear in the woods your choices immediately become limited.

Your choices are done with intent because your brain is intact.

Ain't no strings on me.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:14 pm "Either you believe that religious doctrine, or you don t understand the nature of absolute Free Will. Or both."

I'm an indifferent agnostic (don't know, don't care) and I understand free will perfectly (cuz I am one).

You, on the other hand, seem hell-bent to self-diminish, to be less than what you are. You can view yourself as you like, of course, but I see myself differently and nuthin' any 'determinist' (hard or soft) offers up moves me to discount my experience of myself, in the world.

If this is directed at me HQ, you're sorely mistaken. But then that's typically been you, each and every time you've made the mistake of going around with me. Your free will is not absolute!

The military flies overhead and thanks to TFOA you die! In such a case it would seem that your free will to live for as long as your free will could assure, wasn't quite the case, wasn't so absolute!

As I've said, Free Will, as small as it is, exists within the framework of determinism. It is bound by the physics of the universe and ones knowledge/ignorance. It is not absolute! It's only ever temporal.

No, SoB, that was part of my exchange with Belinda and has/had nuthin' to do with you.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:56 am No, SoB, that was part of my exchange with Belinda and has/had nuthin' to do with you.

Sorry! Then I apologize for being such a dumbass. But it is true, that without a direct quote, and creating a message that immediately follows another's, it is to be understood that it's rebuttal to the immediately preceding message. It would have been nice if you'd have quoted Belinda. Just sayin'.

And if indeed you were quoting her. Do it the correct way, by clicking on the quote marks. Yeah I know the system only allows 3 nested quotes deep, but there are other ways to ensure you're clearly understood to be talking to whom your talking.