What if someone builds a machine to change their neurons the exact way that they want their neurons to be and exactly how they want them to fire?
What if they can figure out how to abstract that machine within their own neurons, instead of an external tool, it’s built into biology through greater technology?
Pardon my taunt but I think that there isn’t even disagreement. It is like a chase of people tied to the same pole, and at each moment they are on opposite sides of the pole, constantly well ahead of each other and gleeful about it but also constantly covering the same ground.
Ok promethean stop your summary posting and get at me with what youve really read in the book. I have it handy here as always.
This is a Spinozean logic Im proposing now.
The real question is: is free will something to talk about. Or is it moot.
If the answer is: no, discussing it is bullshit because it isn’t referring to any aspect of reality, then well, we are being idiots here for sure.
If the answer is: yes, discussing it will progress our understanding of a very real thing which we now understand only as the dichotomy “determinism” - “free will”, then it must be the case that the notion of free will has a reality to it. Determinism as well, but no one is contesting that part.
These days even the US president just declares whatever he wants, regardless: victory, success, truth… - these others can do the same, but does it make them right to do so?
I do feel like I’m constantly covering the same ground, you’re right. But I don’t feel like I’m running - more like I already wondered away from other people, found a better view and am trying to get them to come over to check it out. But they’re faced the other way either telling me my view is worse than theirs without even looking, or following my directions somewhere else and telling me my view sucks. There’s definitely a disagreement.
Sure man. I mean, I am explicitly a substance monist (experience), and this debate has been no problem at all. But other than that, why not .
If someone believes in something that can’t exist, it’s worth talking about it with them because it has no reality to it - I reject your “Spinozan logic” because you’re commiting a False Dilemma fallacy.
Additionally, if others believing in something that can’t exist causes the world to work in a less preferable way than if they didn’t believe in it, then it’s worth talking about it with them not just for their sake but yours as well.
You could come at me equating different forms of existence - like Santa “exists”, therefore “Free Will” exists - but I’m talking about existing in the real world, not an imaginary one.
No Silhouette you are superficial. And Spinoza is the man.
Look at the spaghetti monster. Is it worth debating whether it exists? No.
Not even the fact that the guy was allowed to have it on his passport makes for a topic about whether it really exists. We coolant fill two posts of it. It would tire us out of pure boredom instantly.
If pointing out logical fallacy makes me superficial then fine, I’ll be that. Spinoza is great, your use of his methods are not great: nice Motte and Bailey fallacy - another one for you.
Spaghetti monster ought not to be worth debating (that was the whole intention after all) but when people believe in it and think it is worth debating, it’s worth correcting them - especially if the consequences spill over into everyday life.
Yes. I am. But pluralism in “token” is not the same as dualism in “type”: all concepts you learn in your first year at college/university. Your argument is again invalid.
LOL. This has to be online participation lesson 1 or perhaps 10, but somewhere early on.
You can’t let others potential or actual declaring victory mean anything, or at least can’t let it control your behavior, or then people with joy in repetition and people with unfounded confidence have control of you. (this last, just to tie it in to the issue of freewill, without making it mean either free will or determinism is the case).
But I do understand the feeling.
It has been a hightly effective tool both as a defense mechanism and as a kind of trollish move to combine repeating the same assertions with declarations of victory (a little mind reading is also a great flourish).
But if one let’s it control one’s behavior you literally become a character in someone else’s fantasy.
the choice of how those neurons would be made based on the desires values temperment (both conscious and unconscious) of the person. and those were caused by the prior temperment experiences desires values of the person just before they got to choose and these…going back to the original meiosis or mitosis or…all the way back to the big bang. And then the qm guys say, other stuff might have happened, but it would be random…and then the determinists say, sure, you indeteminists have a good point, but that ain’t free will and the indeterminists say, yeah, we agree with you on that one.
Spinoza is NEVER dealing with hypotheticals. That may be why he is impossible for you and many people to even approach.
My logic is pretty nifty and definitely Spinozean. If you can’t see that, I bet you didn’t read him actually. In fact I think hardly anyone has really read his arguments completely.
Spinoza isn’t like your standard philosopher where you can just take out a phrase and say “look he said this!”
What he really says is in how he draws one statement from a bunch of previous ones.
Thats in a sense the real positivism. Meaning, no dualism, no zero-sum nonsense, but a building up of a model of the inevitable.
this is not even close to a type-token argument, I was like WTF?
My argument is that mutually exclusive consents invalidate your argument of experiential monism, for example:
One person wants to destroy existence
Another person wants to exist forever.
One is experience driven (you)
The other is anti experience driven
They are anti experienceists.
That’s not a monism.
It’s one thing to say that black and white are both colors, it’s a completely different thing when experience as the argument upon itself is mutually exclusive.
Your not using your philosophic jargon correctly …
I’m not arguing the absolutes, I’m arguing compatabilism.
If a photon can be used to determine other photons, how does that photon not have an element of choice or will? Sure, it still has to be a photon: that’s determinism … but for a photon to have the quality of changing itself and others, suggests an innate will in spite of the determinism of it needing a body to exersize that will in the first place