Re: Free Will and Determinism Necessitate Eachother
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:44 pm
Physicalism, by definition. There is nothing not "physical," according to Physicalism. And a "nothing" cannot "cause" anything, also by definition.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Physicalism, by definition. There is nothing not "physical," according to Physicalism. And a "nothing" cannot "cause" anything, also by definition.
You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that? Here, I'll quote you: "But 'acausal' means 'non-physical' as well."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:44 pmPhysicalism, by definition. There is nothing not "physical," according to Physicalism. And a "nothing" cannot "cause" anything, also by definition.
Hmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:50 pm You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?
Nope. You're not going to continually weasel out of every stupid thing you say.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:55 pmHmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:50 pm You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?
You're either an idiot or you're trolling as one. I said this earlier. I can't make you understand things you're either incapable or unwilling to understand (or act like you understand if trolling). But continually weaseling your way out of confronting stupid things you say certainly isn't going to help, unless the goal is simply trolling. If you're not trolling and you want to understand something you presently aren't understanding, you need to go step by step through simple things with me, stop being so confrontational, and make an effort to understand things you presently do not.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:55 pmHmmm....I'm finding this exchange particularly tedious.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 6:50 pm You said that "acausal" means or implies "not physical." Didn't you just say that?
Your explanation relies on us believing in a thing called "acausal events," not one example of which you can produce. You can't show that the concept has any logic in it, nor that it is even a tenable idea within Physicalism. You refuse to accept your rightful burden to prove your case, and prefer to cavil over nothings.
If I take the OP seriously, then I have to imagine that somehow, out of that, you think you get non-Determinism, and maybe free will. If you could, then that would be interesting. But you don't say how.
Not informative. You know my questions. I can't make you answer them.
Thanks for your time. I don't see spending any more of mine on this particular question.
I went to you for that.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:05 pm ...make an effort to understand things you presently do not.
Incapable or unwilling or trolling. It's one of those three. Are you an idiot or are you just playing one here? Whatever the answer, it's hardly my fault. Take some responsibility.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:07 pmI went to you for that.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:05 pm ...make an effort to understand things you presently do not.
The well was dry.
Time to find a new well.
I do. I've let this go on far too long, and I've let it become personal to you, somehow. So I've made a misstep somewhere.
Because you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:25 pm But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"
Again, I asked in the context of three things, not one. Because there are at least three ways in which "acausal events" make no sense at all. But you ignored that.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:35 pmBecause you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:25 pm But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"
Way to ignore "outside of that context, every single thing that happens could be an example. We don't know. We just assume causality, but that's an assumption."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:31 amAgain, I asked in the context of three things, not one. Because there are at least three ways in which "acausal events" make no sense at all. But you ignored that.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 8:35 pmBecause you were asking in the context of logical possibility, and actual acausal events have jackshit to do with logical possibility.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:25 pm But I gave you tons of time, and asked you repeatedly for a single instance of "acausal events,"
This is the third time, after the original time, that I have pointed that out. And I'm betting you'll ignore it again.
So what's the point? I'm going to do something more useful...like bathing my cat.
If you don't know, then they serve as no "example" for your case.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:34 am ...every single thing that happens could be an example. We don't know."
No Mr Can it does not. Science is not an autonomous creature; it is what scientists do and the idea that all scientists subscribe to the same set of directives is something that only some one who knows fuck all about science could claim. Here's a lovely little potted history of science, lead article in issue 133 of Philosophy Now, the magazine supporting this site, written by yours truly. Get your head around that and you should appreciate that Francis Bacon, influential as he was, is not the last word on the scientific method. https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _MillenniaImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:54 pmScience assumes that causality is how things operate...
Which of course doesn't imply that something definitely is the case.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:54 pm Everybody else, including science itself, already is convinced causality is a thing.
You understand, from earlier comments, that "Either determinism is true or things are equiprobably random" is a false dichotomy, right?As for you, you get up in the morning and brush your teeth, presuming that this will "cause" them to endure better the vicissitudes of plaque damage. You work your garden, presuming that it will grow tomatoes, not chaos or dragons. You act all the time as if causality works...and find yourself vindicated, when you do.
Well, who said that?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:22 pm "Either determinism is true or things are equiprobably random" is a false dichotomy, right?