Free Will As Determinism

[Eodnhoj7]

You're not very bright are you?

Are you bright?

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?

I regret asking for an argument about the subject from someone who cannot provide responses to my previously said ones...I don't care about your resume...its a fallacy of authority and ad-hominum if I base the credibility of your argument on your credentials alone...

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Are you bright?

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?

I regret asking for an argument about the subject from someone who cannot provide responses to my previously said ones...I don't care about your resume...its a fallacy of authority and ad-hominum if I base the credibility of your argument on your credentials alone...

It sure is a good thing you're not one of those idiots who has ever used his own IQ as a crutch for an argument.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?

I regret asking for an argument about the subject from someone who cannot provide responses to my previously said ones...I don't care about your resume...its a fallacy of authority and ad-hominum if I base the credibility of your argument on your credentials alone...

It sure is a good thing you're not one of those idiots who has ever used his own IQ as a crutch for an argument.

Ad-hominum is the best you can do.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I would say the obvious hypocrisy of criticizing someone else for something you've done yourself is the point you should've have taken away from that.

If I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem, I probably would have brought up the clear insecurity you feel around other users suggesting that you possibly have an undiagnosed mental disorder. But I would never do that, obviously...

[TimeSeeker]

I would say the obvious hypocrisy of criticizing someone else for something you've done yourself is the point you should've have taken away from that.

If I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem, I probably would have brought up the clear insecurity you feel around other users suggesting that you possibly have an undiagnosed mental disorder. But I would never do that, obviously...

Curious: do you use the word hypocrisy as a pejorative? I own (and I am very proud of) my inconsistency - it's part and parcel with human nature's desire for determinism. Consistency is also practically synonymous with lack of adaptation.

Same thing with "mental disorder". For somebody with "impeccable logic" it sure suggests you might actually believe science can tell us how a brain "should" function. It goes a little too far over the is-ought gap...

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

...You know, you have an awful lot of posts for someone who only joined this website 3 days ago...Usually, when something like that happens on here, it's actually a user trying to circumvent a previous ban. Your demeanor also strikes me as one of familiarity with this forum.

do you use the word hypocrisy as a pejorative?

I use it as a way of determining what someone should/shouldn't do according to his own beliefs.

For somebody with "impeccable logic"

I'm not the one who said that.

it sure suggests you might actually believe science can tell us how a brain "should" function. It goes a little too far over the is-ought gap...

Well no, I'm not even the one suggesting that john doe 7 has a mental disorder. I said that if I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem against him, I probably would have brought up his obvious insecurity over the general assumption by other people that he has one. Again, though, I would never bring up something like that.

[TimeSeeker]

...You know, you have an awful lot of posts for someone who only joined this website 3 days ago...Usually, when something like that happens on here, it's actually a user trying to circumvent a previous ban. Your demeanor also strikes me as one of familiarity with this forum.

Is that an ad-hominem now, or just you falling victim to abdictive (rather than deductive) reasoning?

I'm not the one who said that.

You are correct. Apologies.

Well no, I'm not even the one suggesting that john doe 7 has a mental disorder. I said that if I wanted to make an effective ad-hominem against him, I probably would have brought up his obvious insecurity over the general assumption by other people that he has one. Again, though, I would never bring up something like that.

I am not saying you suggested you did that. What I am suggesting is that you don't appear to recognise the use-mention distinction, and therefore the phrase "mental disorder" is a regular part of your vocabulary. See - I don't think mental disorders exist. At least - not in a way that can be empirically verified.

If it can’t be falsified - it isn’t science.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

What I am suggesting is that you don't appear to recognise the use-mention distinction

...That is quite a bent interpretation of words. If I say someone else is claiming something - that's not me affirming the claim, myself.

You understand, that if I talk about how someone claims to have seen ''bigfoot' in the woods, that's not me saying that I think bigfoot actually exists.

therefore the phrase "mental disorder" is a regular part of your vocabulary.

No, I... I actually don't see how that follows, like at all. Sounds like you're scraping for an excuse to make a mountain out of a mole hill, because my point was never about how he actually has a mental disorder, or that mental disorders exist, at all. I mean they do, but that wasn't the point; In fact, there wasn't a point at all, because I was just saying how his obvious insecurity over the accusations by most other people that he has an undiagnosed mental illness is not something that I am going to bring up. No sirree, not gonna talk about his insecurity over that. I mean, insecurity, like, what?

Frankly, you're making it awkward for the poor lad, stretching out the conversation like this, about something he clearly doesn't want to talk about.

See - I don't think mental disorders exist. At least - not in a way that can be empirically verified.

Have you ever seen that cute video on YouTube, of the black kid who doesn't know he's black? He's like blissfully unaware that there is such a thing as race, so he goes up to his parents and has this 5 minute tiff about how he doesn't think he's actually black.

Well, when you say something like that - what comes to mind, is a not-so-cute, cringey situation where a guy with 'down syndrome' goes up to his parents and tries to argue with them about how he doesn't actually have 'down syndrome.' Or even worse, a schizophrenic person refusing to take the meds his psychiatrist has prescribed to him, because he's not convinced schizophrenia is real thing.

[TimeSeeker]

hat is quite a bent interpretation of words. If I say someone else is claiming something - that's not me affirming the claim, myself.

Interesting distinction. Bent vs unbent? Almost as if you believe in objective interpretation or something. Would you be willing to provide your classification rules for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule ?

You understand, that if I talk about how someone claims to have seen ''bigfoot' in the woods, that's not me saying that I think bigfoot actually exists.

Yes. Like I said - the use-mention distinction. Which is perfectly valid until you actually USE the word rather than mention it. Like you actually acknowledge over here:

I mean they do, but that wasn't the point;

And then you keep digging:

Have you ever seen that cute video on YouTube, of the black kid who doesn't know he's black? He's like blissfully unaware that there is such a thing as race, so he goes up to his parents and has this 5 minute tiff about how he doesn't think he's actually black.

You mean he rejects the identity (signifier, label) you have imposed on him? That is he draws a distinction between excessive melanin in his skin tone and and his ontology?

I mean - I could call you stupid (based on the surface-level observation of how you USE language). After all you seem to be confusing an empirically-verifiable genetic disorder with a mental one here:

Well, when you say something like that - what comes to mind, is a not-so-cute, cringey situation where a guy with 'down syndrome' goes up to his parents and tries to argue with them about how he doesn't actually have 'down syndrome.'

Or a non-falsifiable symptomatic diagnosis without a clearly understood root-cause for "scientific" thus appealing to the authority of psychiatry:

Or even worse, a schizophrenic person refusing to take the meds his psychiatrist has prescribed to him, because he's not convinced schizophrenia is real thing.

But I don't know what "stupid" is. So I can't use that word. Besides - abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning) is not how I roll when I interact with HUMANS (a word I can't define, but it is an ontology I can recognize) whose minds I cannot read/measure.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you bright?

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?

I regret asking for an argument about the subject from someone who cannot provide responses to my previously said ones...I don't care about your resume...its a fallacy of authority and ad-hominum if I base the credibility of your argument on your credentials alone...

Not at all! That I don't agree to play 'your' game, thus lend it credibility, necessarily means absolutely nothing, or maybe something. It could mean that I see you lost in the words of humans. It could mean that your conceptualizations have run amuck. It could mean I'm far too lazy to take the time to formulate a directly opposing viewpoint, because I refuse to try and ferret out what's the crux of your currently confused state. As surely a few of your comments are in fact contradictory. In truth sometimes I'm just far too tired to put forth such an effort. Sure it shall probably cause my earlier death, unless I find another outlet to push it's boundaries. But it surely seems that the closer some get to their natural end they tend to throw in the towel, tired of all the human bullshit that can only ever actually go nowhere.

All the human hoopla, I've known for quite some time, is simply a detraction, so they can ignore the fact that it's all for nothing, that it's inevitable that they shall in fact die; simply a distraction! Something for them to qualify as real, so they can believe, if only for a short time, that their life is certain, that they certainly have a grip. But in fact they never will! 'It slips away, like water in the sand.'

Drink of Water
By: Ambrosia (1975)

"Someone talks about a road
At the end find life's gold

I went out to get a drink of water
But I saw an ocean far away
I thought of how much beyond awaits me
Foolishly I turned my head the other way, yeah

Do you like where you're livin' at?
I'm not happy inside
You could build a golden house
Yeah, but still I'm sad inside

I set out on a long and lonely journey
And traveled through some strange and distant lands
And many times I thought I'd found life's meaning
But it slipped away like water in the sand

Do you like where you're livin' at?
I'm not happy inside
You could build a golden house
yeah but, still I'm sad inside

(Instrumental solos)

One summer storm
I'm waitin' for the sun
One summer storm
I've waited so long
Waited so long, yeah!

In our lives we've all drank of the water
And heard the ocean callin' out our names
Some will seek and find their life's meaning
And some will turn their heads the other way"



I told you that you'd regret it!

P.S. Sure, like "all" those that come here, I've done so to try and bolster my, only ever to eventually fail, grip...

...all just a distraction!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you bright?

Well I can reason pretty damned well, my logic is impeccable. And I never take anyones word on anything unless I fully understand it's truth factor.
So you'll never see me parrot anything.

As far as exceptionally bright, no, just a B average, so not especially. My IQ was closer to genius than average, actually between the two, I was marginally closer to the three quarters point than the halfway point. I'll take a B, that's good enough for me! Then one has to consider that I was tested back in the mid 90's. Who knows how it's gone since then. Though I know for a fact that I understand some things better than you do, and the same thing can be said of you. Everyone has their forte'. If only our minds could contain everything, that would be nice! Yeah?

Tell me the truth, you're starting to regret it already, right?

I regret asking for an argument about the subject from someone who cannot provide responses to my previously said ones...I don't care about your resume...its a fallacy of authority and ad-hominum if I base the credibility of your argument on your credentials alone...

"IQ is the most thoroughly researched means of measuring intelligence, and by far the most widely used in practical settings. However, while IQ strives to measure some concepts of intelligence, it may fail to serve as an accurate measure of broader definitions of intelligence. IQ tests examine some areas of intelligence, while neglecting to account for other areas, such as creativity and social intelligence.

Critics such as Keith Stanovich do not dispute the reliability of IQ test scores or their capacity to predict some kinds of achievement, but argue that basing a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone neglects other important aspects of mental ability." --wikipedia--

Sorry my friend, but the professionals with PhD's trump you. But of course I'll always defend your right to assert your ill-informed opinions. Fear, anyone?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

hat is quite a bent interpretation of words. If I say someone else is claiming something - that's not me affirming the claim, myself.

Interesting distinction. Bent vs unbent? Almost as if you believe in objective interpretation or

No, I just believe you are intentionally taking an interpretation of my own words that gives you an excuse to harp on about how 'mental disorders' don't actually exist, because in reality this has a very, very vague connection to what I was saying.

It seems as though you're the one who believes in an 'objective interpretation,' because you're trying to put me into this box of something I'm straight out telling you - I didn't mean.

Yes. Like I said - the use-mention distinction. Which is perfectly valid until you actually USE the word rather than mention it. Like you actually acknowledge over here:

I mean they do, but that wasn't the point;

I don't acknowledge that I used the term in a way that implies I have to accept the term myself - in fact, I said the opposite. Did you even read what you literally just quoted?

I mean, I do think that mental disorders exist, but there was nothing in this discussion that would have allowed you to infer that. Besides me directly telling you that I do.

After all you seem to be confusing an empirically-verifiable genetic disorder with a mental one here:

Well it's a verifiable, genetic disorder that causes mental disability.

Or a non-falsifiable symptomatic diagnosis without a clearly understood root-cause for "scientific" thus appealing to the authority of psychiatry:

...Well, we'll just let you be the one who explains all that to the people diagnosed with low-functioning autism, who keep pooping in their own pants because they can't figure out how to use a toilet.

Besides - abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning) is not how I roll when I interact with HUMANS (a word I can't define, but it is an ontology I can recognize) whose minds I cannot read/measure.

That sounds very much as though it's directed at me in a personal way, from some of the stuff that I've said on this forum.

[TimeSeeker]

I mean, I do think that mental disorders exist, but there was nothing in this discussion that would have allowed you to infer that. Besides me directly telling you that I do.

You are, of course, correct.

I used my INTUITION to predict that I am in fact missing evidence to make such an accusation but I suspected the evidence was there to be uncovered. So I shook vigorously and the evidence fell out. It's called entrapment. Or empiricism. Or luck. I imagine no philosopher ever would tell you to trust your feelings/instincts, which is why you shouldn't listen to philosophers.

Anyhow, now that I have the evidence - your objection/counter-argument is irrelevant.

Well it's a verifiable, genetic disorder that causes mental disability.

You mean the median IQ of people with Down syndrome is 50, but there is great variance in the distribution? Is THAT what you mean by the word "disability"? I am not sure where you draw the line given that "mental ability" (e.g IQ) is measured on a continuum". The agreed upon magic number is 70. So 20 below is 'disabled'? Does that mean that if your IQ is 20 or more below mine then I can call you 'relatively disabled'? And if it is more than 40 points difference can I call you a retard?

Well, we'll just let you be the one who explains all that to the people diagnosed with low-functioning autism, who keep pooping in their own pants because they can't figure out how to use a toilet.

I don't have to explain anything to anybody diagnosed with anything. If they can't use a toilet, they sure as shit aren't going to understand my explanation. What people like this NEED isn't an explanation. They NEED a solution. They NEED tools/techniques to stop shitting their pants and function autonomously - if at all possible. Irrespective of how you label their condition.

That sounds very much as though it's directed at me in a personal way, from some of the stuff that I've said on this forum.

Interpret it however you wish. I am merely teaching you about epistemic humility - by turning the tables on you. Having been on the receiving end myself I imagine it feels like shit. Which is exactly the point.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

I used my INTUITION to predict that I am in fact missing evidence to make such an accusation but I suspected the evidence was there to be uncovered

You...actually didn't? I mean, that's not all you did; You made up some ridiculous differentiation between 'using and mentioning' words that you didn't actually believe applied to what I was doing.

...Well, you didn't need to be intellectually dishonest in order to extract the information that I believe what the vast majority of human beings believe - I would have just told you that mental disorders exist, right off the bat, if you had simply asked...though you shouldn't need to do that. You could have just assumed that I think they exist, just as you'd prolly be safe to assume that I think the grass is green. I mean, probably. So it sounds like you went through a hefty number of hoop (or at least you think you did) for me to tell you something that is... very basic information.

However, none of this is to say - this is at all relevant to the current discussion. It's still not. As I said, you have made a mountain out of a molehill. And in case you didn't infer from me - I have no plans on debating you on the existence of mental disorders. Not today.

Anyhow, now that I have the evidence - your objection/counter-argument is irrelevant.

That's the thing, though. I actually don't think my objection is irrelevant. The point was that you couldn't have inferred what you said could have been from the discussion, and that is still true. And that isn't just me being pedantic about a technicality - this goes into the point about you taking a crumb of information, and blowing it out of proportion, so I still don't want to - or will - talk to you about whether mental disorders actually exist - because that was never relevant to what I said.

So I accused you anyway to rile you up (just like you made an 'insecurity' accusation) . And in the process - you produced the evidence I need to prove my INTUITION right. It's called entrapment.

...Now you're definitely not talking to me like you and I have never talked, before.

Look, John. Sorry if you took anything I've said about you personally; It was just a bit of internet tomfoolery. It was not to be taken seriously, my dude. Not sure if you created another account because you were banned or because of something else. Real shame if it was the former, for as much as you and I disagreed, I definitely think you were entitled to the right to say what you did. I mean, your views on women were...frankly pretty disgusting, and sad. You grossly abused the human language, in a way that made me regret we ever evolved past homo-erectus. But, I probably don't think you should have been banned, if that's what happened.

But hey, this is just me using my highly flawed abductive reasoning that obviously doesn't work at all. Maybe I'm just being crazy - you have no association with eodnhoj7, and the timed and cordial jump to his defense, possessing a similar speaking manner and demeanor to that of his own (albeit, with a bit of meticulous 'forging' to lower suspicions) appearing at the time of his disappearance, and the attempt to understand what I do around here even though you've never seen me before - is just a big ol' coincidence. I mean, I could definitely be wrong, here.

"Will the real John Doe please stand up?"

I am merely teaching you about epistemic humility - by turning the tables on you. Having been on the receiving end myself I imagine it feels like shit.

...I mean, I'm willing to let you believe that was a good attempt at pulling a page out of my book, but I think you already know that it wasn't. It felt very forced and unnatural.

But frankly, I'm willing to throw you bone here; Let's just let bygons be bygons. If you don't want me to reply to you anymore, I'll leave it be.

[TimeSeeker]

You made up some ridiculous differentiation between 'using and mentioning' words that you didn't actually believe applied to what I was doing.

1. I didn't make it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80 ... istinction
2. I believe the distinction is exhaustive so you were doing one or the other. I had two hypotheses. You eliminated one.

Given your baseless accusation do you think I have presented enough to accuse you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance at this point?

...Well, you didn't need to be intellectually dishonest in order to extract the information that I believe what the vast majority of human beings believe - I would have just told you that mental disorders exist right off the bat, if you had simply asked...though you shouldn't need to do that. You could have just assumed that I think they exist

1. I wasn't intellectually dishonest.
2.1 I know that some human beings believe mental disorders exist.
2.2. I also know that some humans believe mental disorders don't exist.
3.1 I fall into category 2.2.
3.2 I don't know which category you fall into.
4. Because of the problem of induction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction) I CHOSE not to assume anything.
5. Rather than committing a bandwagon fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) I decided to actually keep both options live. Till you categorized yourself.

What you seem to call "intellectual dishonesty" was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. Is it truly so unfathomable to you that some people don't like to make assumptions? Are you really this intellectually lazy?

Now you're definitely not talking to me like you and I have never talked, before.

There you go again. Jumping to conclusions. You aren't very good at validating your assumptions, are you? Slow learner maybe?

Whoever you think I am, I don't think I have ever interacted with you before. Whatever John did to you (or you did to him) sounds like it traumatized you. Maybe you two need to talk it out in private?