I’ll answer you when you commit to really listen instead of saying you’ll listen and then taking over with your own spew.
I’m not a determinist anyway, so your silly loop holes don’t work on me.
Why? was it determined that you do… 
Yes. It was self-determined.
I could have chosen otherwise.
Does self-determination equate to free-will, or no… to you?
It does. But it needs a context.
Being self-determined does not equate to free will. Self-determined means to be determined or driven by your desire to accomplish something without anyone to distract you from your goal. Having a one track mind, so to speak. This does not negate the fact that your determination is under a compulsion to get you to where you want to go. The claim that we have no free will has not been disproved.
What is the difference between self-determination and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
They’re different in that self-determination is being focused on a goal without the need to depend on others. OCD is a disorder where not repeating something over and over a certain way will cause bad things to happen. It’s completely fear based.
independently
you mean
like
freely?
You actually edited your post to take out the word “independently” and replaced with “without the need to depend”
…you mean…
…like…
freely?
All these words like independent, autonomous, self-determined only mean a way of responding that does not depend on others. These words do not mean we are free of the compulsion to choose what is the most preferable. We can’t get away from this fact!
That’s what the word means. To do something independently is to do something without the need to depend on anyone. If you’re an independent person, you can probably do many things on your own without the need for help. This has nothing to do with the fact that you are under a compulsion to pick what is the most preferable option (in your eyes) at any given moment in time.
Moving the goal posts.
This is hilarious. I’ll never learn, lol.
The goalposts have not changed. When someone laughs like you just did is a giveaway that you can’t find a flaw which is a threat.
Flaws.
-
It does not negate free will to need. Others… or otherwise.
-
It negates your freedom to love others as self (respect self as other) if there are no others.
-
You would not ever gain independence (loosely defined) if you were not free to do so before you were independent (loosely defined).
Still gonna find some way to twist it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Prove me wrong
PG punts back to Lessans in 3… 2… woop s/he beat me:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 4#p2897594
Okay, Mary reads the quote. She asks you if, given the point made in the quote, she is or is not morally responsible for aborting Jane.
What, in your view, would the author tell her?
What would you tell her?
Me? I’d tell her that given what I think “here and now” she is not morally responsible for something that her brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter compels her to do. And then when she asked how I would go about demonstrating this, I’d admit that I can’t. And I can’t because, for one thing, I am not privy to grasping an understanding of this:
All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.
Are you? Is peacegirl?
That “somehow”… is it up in the clouds with skyhooks?
Anyone else?
[-o<