for me!
compatibilism
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: compatibilism
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
I think you deserve that star HQ.
Now. Do you have free will?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.
Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you)
Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you)
Re: compatibilism
This is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.
Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you)
I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 amThis is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.
Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you)
I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
Re: compatibilism
Are you joking?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 amAh, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:06 amThis is an audacious claim. Moreover, you are utterly mistaken.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:30 am I think I have cracked the answer to the FREE WILL v DETERMINISM debate.
Free will wins. (coming to a philosophy forum near you)
I am stunned. It makes me question whether some people can comprehend even the most fundamental scientific facts. Did they ever attend school?
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
Less posting, more thinking BigMike.BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:18 amAre you joking?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 amAh, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
Re: compatibilism
I mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:30 pmBelinda, is what you are inferring full body consciousness, if so, it would be difficult to deny. I believe awareness itself is function and not material, just as thought is not physical but the product of the physical.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:43 pmif I may interject, the mind is the idea of the body
includes 'brain' with ' body' .Mind is not a separate substance from brain but is brain(and body -proper)from the subjective aspect. Obviously the anatomist or the physiologist views brain and body-proper from the objective aspect.
I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.
Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)
So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is an posteriori explanation. Thought , or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: compatibilism
For posting links (for a second time) people ignore? Yes, I do.
I am a free will, yes.Now. Do you have free will?
Re: compatibilism
Share with us some of your profound insights. Either put up or shut up.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:23 amLess posting, more thinking BigMike.BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:18 amAre you joking?attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:12 am Ah, you make me laugh BigMike, you just need to get into the depths and fathom it out from Boony's Room and the quantum state of ALL matter.
-
- Posts: 2167
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: compatibilism
Wow, it is going to take me awhile to digest that, interesting!! You are a piece of work; I mean that in a positive way!!Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:53 pmI mean, not only full body consciousness,as brain can't exist without oxygen etc, but also all material existence : circulation of the blood, osmosis, etc. The materialist (physicalist) is not mistaken that physical stuff exists and is apprehended through objective minds.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:30 pmBelinda, is what you are inferring full body consciousness, if so, it would be difficult to deny. I believe awareness itself is function and not material, just as thought is not physical but the product of the physical.Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 6:43 pm
if I may interject, the mind is the idea of the body
includes 'brain' with ' body' .Mind is not a separate substance from brain but is brain(and body -proper)from the subjective aspect. Obviously the anatomist or the physiologist views brain and body-proper from the objective aspect.
I also mean that subjective perspectives pertain to all living things and subjective implies not mediated by objective considerations. Subjectively, men usually feel there is an objectively material world 'out there'. Thus the material world of brains, bodies, and physiology is conceptual.
Also conceptual is what I am doing right now, philosophising. Both the material and the mental are true and are two aspects of the same thing which is Deus Sive Natura. (It's a pity English is so polluted by silly beliefs that we speak Latin!)
So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is a posteriori explanation. Thought, or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
What's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas.
Re: compatibilism
So when you said you had solved the free will vs. determinism debate, you were way too quick and overstated the case. You have nothing.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:57 pmWhat's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas.
- attofishpi
- Posts: 10575
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
- Location: Orion Spur
- Contact:
Re: compatibilism
I said "I think I have solved.."BigMike wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 9:14 pmSo when you said you had solved the free will vs. determinism debate, you were way too quick and overstated the case. You have nothing.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Nov 27, 2022 8:57 pmWhat's the hurry? Me got some thinking and research to do, so maybe after Christmas.
Patience my pretty.
My God, I think I have cracked the question of whether or not we have free will, and we do!!
Re: compatibilism
I don't think Spinoza meant that. Deus Sive Natura doesn't mean that the material and the mental are two aspects of the same thing; it literally means "God or nature", or even, in a less literal way, "God, i.e. nature", reflecting his position that if you insist on there being a god, that god is the same as nature, not that the two are different aspects of something else.
Switching from "God or nature" to "Thought, or 'mind' and the material world", as you do here, is a bit of a stretch too. Not everything in nature is material. There are, for example, true propositions in nature, such as the conservation laws as fundamental laws of nature, but the truths themselves are not material; they have no mass or electric charge or any other physical property.So I don't think "thought is ----- the product of the physical". That explanation of thought is an posteriori explanation. Thought , or 'mind' and the material world a priori are aspects of nature.