Freewill exists

Were there a competition for the most ridiculous non sequitur ever this would be a serious contender for that position
And it wasnt your post that I was replying to either so your eyseight is fading as well as your ability to reason logically
I knew I should have stayed away from this thread oh well never mind


And I am not a subjectivist either so even more fail for you there Eccy baby

It shows you have no intellectual capacity here.

You addressed the totality of me as a response to someone on ILP. That objectivists, especially, ecmandu, because you named me, are the biggest worthless prices of shit in all of existence, by the objective standard of EVERYONE who ever lived (yes, you used a universal in your reply to sihlloutte, and would be better if blowing his brains out.
Read your fucking post dude.

And read between the fucking lines.


And eyesight not eyseight [ I hate making spelling mistakes ] its all your fault Eccy

Ok you’re retreating back to your infinite regress argument from 6 months ago. We already buried this one through the concepts of continuity and relativity. You have to believe everything is a sequence of discrete and absolute snapshots for this nonsense of yours to make any sense whatsoever.

I think I’ve pretty much nailed it on the head that your realm of eternal templates is just a fantasy world where you ignore contrary evidence and only think in black and white. All hail the god of ignorance. His name is Ecmandu.

Nice to see surreptitious is aware of your affliction too.
But Jesus, dude, stop bringing this out of me - I don’t want to have to continually put you in your place like this. It feels like flogging a dead horse - still no response to my offer of tuition? You’d really benefit, and I offer it for free. It’s worth it just to put a stop to whatever this delusion is that you’re riding on.

Continuum theory is the same as infinite regress.

Analog is by far more problematic than snapshots. I’m arguing for snapshots being necessary because of analog

Calm down Eccy its just a difference of opinion stop ranting like a madman

I am a madman, madman.

No don’t touch him! Stand back and let him rage. This is the progress we’ve been waiting for. It’s that anger that might very well be the thing he needed to get laid. I say make that sonofabitch so infuriated that he shoves his keyboard off the desk, smashes his hyperdimensional mirror, puts his blue coat on, marches right down to the chili’s bar n grill and buys the first hottie he sees a beer in a magnificent spectacle of approach escalation. And when she says ‘yes’, by god she’ll mean YES.

we may have just made a breakthrough in ecman’s therapy. Whatever you do, DON’T CALM HIM DOWN!

You guys are both funny (hilariously so, not haha)

So here’s the deal.

I know for a fact that evolutionary runaway sexual selection has conditioned your minds to parrot what you need to parrot to get sex from women.

You’ll even go so far as to state that something as self evident as your own existence (and mine for sure) is just subjective.

Like I always say to you guys who think you’re these gritty postmodern badasses. If you took a mind like mine and gave it morals like yours, you’d rue the day you were ever born.

That goes for the whole lot of you!

And to think that someday nature might compel me to debate him!

I can’t believe you said I’m not a gritty postmodern badass. How could you say such a thing? I thought we were tight, man.

I’ll remember that.

Number one - I am celibate so have no need to get sex from women
Number two - my existence is self evident and therefore objective

You mentioned that before.

Well, I’m an incel because women only sexually consent to no means yes relationships.

And I’m trying to remain a shred of dignity on a planet that just doesn’t care anymore.

Sorry to confuse you with subjectivists.

So… here are my thoughts …

I don’t think I have much more to say on ILP…

Hyperdimensional mirror realities are the only solution to all problems.

So, I think I’ll just fade off and merge with the cosmos. (That’s not a suicide note!!).

Postmodernists bore me now.

Once I figured out that’s all women will fuck, I lost interest in the species.

I like reference.

Oh well.

I just realized…

I’ll complete my posting history here by talking about the ins and outs of hyperdimensional mirror realities.

I may be compelled to misunderstand you here more than you are compelled to misunderstand me but it is ecmandu that nature may or may not be compelling me to debate.

I’ll let peacegirl be compelled to decide. :wink:

I feel the point of wisdom is to understand that compelling and bypass it when such is possible, as something ‘compelling’ could appear as instinctual or a falling for such.

What say you or anyone?

I just got frustrated with silhouette here.

When silhouette argues that identity doesn’t exist in any way, but then uses identity to make his arguments, that’s pretty much it for me.

Silhouette, there isn’t a difference between contradiction and a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are inference contradictions, not explicit.

You hit upon the contradiction of your fallacy at the convergence point of the fallacy by stating you don’t exist. In this way, you are a direct contradiction (not implicit) of your fallacy.

If they want to confine themselves to limitation, then let them.

To say one is bound to determinism is to say we are confined, let’s just say there is no confinement within determinism itself because it has already determined itself free, by there being an infinity of options and change within its “confines” itself.

I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws in terms of inventing and being whom I want, I’m not going to let slaves tell me those options aren’t available to my selection just because they don’t appear to them. The limits one has are the limits one creates.

I can be an astronaut, can be a musician, a writer… but I have chosen psychology in school and am merely waiting. Options are limitless.

The conflation of possibility with actuality.

You “could have been” an astronaut, a musician, a writer - and yet you weren’t. Why not?
There will have been reasons that determined you not to choose them.
If you choose them in future, there will be a reason that determines it.

Options are “theoretically” limitless, but in practice some things will simply never occur to you. Would an Ancient Greek have been considering what social media apps to use? Would the first humans be considering the fluid dynamics that are necessary to successfully propel a rocket to the moon? They didn’t even know what the moon was. Even today we won’t in our wildest dreams be considering the everyday options available to people far enough into the future.
The “freest” of people do not have infinite options available to them in reality whether I “tell you” this is the case or not - the most basic reason being that we are finite beings with finite brains and memories with finite (although huge numbers of) connections, thoughts take finite time to flit recognisably in our consciousness, and we have a finite life span - mathematically options are limited.

Are you under the impression that anyone is a slave to mathematics? Are you suggesting that 2+2 could equal 5 to the non-slave?

You already make the concession “I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws”, which in themselves are limits. Are you saying that if you remove those limits, free any slavelike tendencies in your mind, the effects described by gravity can cease to apply to you and things around you? Magnets could cease to operate to one who frees their mind from Determinism? By your admission I don’t think you are, and yet in the same sentence you argue that you are. This is your contradiction. Funnily enough the stability of your entire being would cease in an instant if you freed yourself from universal laws.

By all means, be in awe of the large number of options that do occur to you, the uncommon ideas that do occur to you, and the unique paths that you actually do choose as a result of these things, but in reality there are limits you simply can’t shake whether I “tell you” or not. It’s not like I’m ordering you to reduce your thinking, you’re reduced whether I say anything or not… I’m sorry you don’t like this, but by the above arguments and all the other ones I’ve said, and more no doubt, life is a limit and this is reality. I feel like a parent telling their kid Santa isn’t real. I’ve already pointed out the irony that it’s quite possible that my mind is “more free” than yours for being able to abandon the romance of unlimited Free Will - I wonder if you’ve given this any serious thought yet - and by serious I don’t mean assuming it’s wrong before you even consider it. You have all your free thinking ahead of you - call me a slave all you like and it’s still psychological projection.

From what I can tell, Free Will advocates can’t square the fact that they have a large imagination that seems not to be contained, with the reality that it all can be and is contained. Funnily enough, your concession of “I can do just about whatever I want to do within the universal laws” sums up every single limit there is on both action and thought. Outer space, the earth, animals - even the human brain operates exactly how it does exactly because of these universal laws alone. Nothing more is needed, which is why the “four fundamental forces” are so named. Saying this is actually an admission that you are an entirely deterministic being whether you can accept this or not.

Add it to the pile of made up wishful thinking if you want…

Formal fallacies are the most explicit of fallacies, e.g. (P->Q, Q) → P
Contrast this with a contradiction: ¬P ^ P where there is mutual exclusivity.

A clear difference. Now, the way you think is to reduce things to very specific circumstances where the difference is no longer clear, in order to justify False Equivalence - this is a logical fallacy.
You don’t like logical fallacies since your arguments rely on them, so you try to explain them away by the same means.

And you get frustrated with people who call you out on your bullshit…
I appreciate the effort to try and create, but it doesn’t mean you’ll be any good at it. Sure, keep trying, learn from the mistakes people teach you and move on to new things but you’re obsessed with a small number of terrible, flawed ideas that you just won’t move on from - like a song-writer insisting they have written the greatest song of all time and trying to perform it better and better their whole life, without anyone else liking it. There’s clearly something psychologically amiss with you, which is my greatest worry - it feels like your entire identity and emotional sense of self-worth is grounded in bad ideas. Fortunately one of humanity’s greatest strengths is denial, but that just makes me sad for you. Not your problem, I guess - religious fanatics can spend their whole lives in echo chambers without ever admitting fault in their nonsense, I’m sure you can do it too.

FYI, I said identity has existence in terms of utility, just not in terms of truth. You say I argue “that identity doesn’t exist in any way”.
Continue to misunderstand and misrepresent me to yourself and others if it makes you feel better, but you’re a liar if you do.
You complain that I use identity, when I plainly said I do and why, and it’s still a Tu Quoque fallacy to criticise this. The fact that you don’t understand fallacies doesn’t excuse you here (which ironically is the personal incredulity fallacy).

You know, it’s funny. You try and equate logical fallacy and logical contradiction, whilst also saying logical fallacies always have holes where proofs using logical contradiction never have holes.
I mean… come on :laughing: Have your cake or eat it - you can’t have both.
Consider for the first time in your life that you might be wrong.

Silhouette,

You’re really going to argue that Tu Quoque doesn’t have a convergence point, that doesn’t make it a false equivalency in the special case of stating that identity is false (with the exception that it’s utile)?

It’s ultimately utile, yet ultimately false.

Which is it?