I already said that everything is conditional.
That’s why I said you can’t read.
In order for us to exist, existence must exist - a condition - therefor the idea of freewill is a non starter.
Defending choice with determinism IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBALISM!!!
Can you get that through your thick skull?
Many people in this thread have told you that.
That’s not only how definitions work, that’s how concepts work.
The burden of proof is on you to prove concepts and definitions work differently.
[quote=“Ecmandu”]
I already said that everything is conditional.
Peacegirl: Everything IS based on conditions. Who is arguing with this?
Ecmandu: That’s why I said you can’t read.
In order for us to exist, existence must exist - a condition - therefor the idea of freewill is a non starter.
Peacegirl: That’s a non sequitur if I ever heard one.
Ecmandu: Defending choice with determinism IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBALISM!!!
Peacegirl: They are defending free will with a definition that is inaccurate. Definitions mean nothing where reality is concerned. We have choice but we don’t have a free choice. Do you not get that?
Ecmandu: Can you get that through your thick skull?
Many people in this thread have told you that.
Peacegirl: Why do you feel so threatened by this knowledge?
Ecmandu: That’s not only how definitions work, that’s how concepts work.
Peacegirl: If they bear truth.
Ecmandu: The burden of proof is on you to prove concepts and definitions work differently.
Peacegirl: Concepts and definitions can be true, or not, depending on how close they come to describing reality.
PG wrote,
“We have choice but we do not have free choice. Do you get that?”
Ecmandu replies:
That’s the absolute PERFECT definition of compatibalism!!!
Talk about projection!!
Through this whole thread you have given the perfect definition of compatibalism and then get angry at anyone who argues compatibalism.
You’re mad at your reflection in the mirror.
You’re the person projecting in this thread.
You’re the one with cognitive dissonance.
You’re the person who hates you.
We’re just giving you definitional facts here.
PG wrote,
“We have choice but we do not have free choice. Do you get that?”
Ecmandu replies:
That’s the absolute PERFECT definition of compatibalism!!!
Peacegirl; It might be a perfect definition of compatibilism, BUT IT’S INCORRECT. IT’S A SEMANTIC SHIFT TO MAKE THE TWO APPEAR COMPATIBLE.! They qualify what free will is by trying to define what it is not! Only people who have a gun to their head or OCD have no free will, according to them. This is in no way, shape, or form an accurate definition although it’s useful for their purposes of keeping determinism intact and also the status quo of blame and punishment without it appearing contradictory.
Ecmandu: Talk about projection!!
Through this whole thread you have given the perfect definition of compatibalism and then get angry at anyone who argues compatibalism.
Peacegirl: What I’m describing determinism to be is not in the slightest related to compatibilism and if you showed a little bit of interest, you would have seen that.
Ecmandu: You’re mad at your reflection in the mirror.
You’re the person projecting in this thread.
You’re the one with cognitive dissonance.
You’re the person who hates you.
We’re just giving you definitional facts here.
Peacegirl: You disagree because you, like Iambiguous, are using an inaccurate definition of determinism, which makes it appear we have no choice. We are puppets. That is not the definition I am using.
No.
Iambiguous and I have different arguments.
Iambiguous argues the god argument, the common ancestor argument, the common decent argument from an initial condition.
I argue that we were all never born and we all never die.
Different arguments. Iambiguous projects because he always offers the god argument while submitting god doesn’t exist.
My argument is different.
I’m literally saying that if CHOICE has not and cannot ever exist in someway … then it couldn’t be possible for us to debate for or against it.
But you agree choice exists, but then you say there’s no choice to our choice.
Again, this is YOU projecting !!!
You’re a compatibalist, who hates compatibalism.
I’m not the crazy one here, you and iambiguous are.
Ecmandu: No.
Iambiguous and I have different arguments.
Iambiguous argues the god argument, the common ancestor argument, the common decent argument from an initial condition.
I argue that we were all never born and we all never die.
Different arguments. Iambiguous projects because he always offers the god argument while submitting god doesn’t exist.
My argument is different.
I’m literally saying that if CHOICE has not and cannot ever exist in someway … then it couldn’t be possible for us to debate for or against it.
Peacegirl: You’re absolutely right. We make choices every single day.
Ecmandu: But you agree choice exists, but then you say there’s no choice to our choice.
Peacegirl: We contemplate our options which help us to decide what our next move will be, but once we follow through on a choice, we could never have done otherwise because we cannot move against what we find the most preferable.
Ecmandu: Again, this is YOU projecting !!!
You’re a compatibalist, who hates compatibalism.
I’m not the crazy one here, you and iambiguous are.
Peacegirl: I’m so far from being a compatibilist, it’s a joke.
Ok.
I get your definition of determinism now.
We can’t go back and change it.
Are you sure that’s true? I’m just curious because three counter arguments just popped into my head for that.
We cannot reverse time and undo what has already been done. If you believe we can reverse time, then we are off to a bad start.
What if I could jump into my 16 year old body with my 44 year old brain and nobody else did?
Could I not make different decisions that would alter the timeline?
What about beings in higher dimensions who can come and go as they please at any point in the timeline?
Problem here with you is you have so little exposure to spirit that you see temporal paradoxes where the spirit sees none.
Unless you can prove any of these things, it’s no different than believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. If this is what you’re using to prove we could do otherwise, once a choice has been made, I’m not interested.
Alright,
Since this is beyond you.
Let me come at it this way.
Let’s say you’re a hardcore misandrist (women who hate all men), then something different happens in your future to change your mind. Suddenly not all men are bad. And you know it for a fact.
The decisions you made in the past worked to make the decisions you made in the future. If that weren’t possible, you’d always be a misandrist.
People change their thoughts and feelings all the time Ecmandu. What does this have to do with spirits in other dimensions that alter the FACT we cannot reverse time and undo what has already been done? You are exploiting my thread to defend your wild theories; you’re not interested in this discovery at all. This I can see. It’s a waste of time for me. I hope you find others who are interested in your beliefs.
PG wrote:
“People change their thoughts and feelings all the time Ecmandu.”
It’s pure logic. If the past can’t be changed, peoples thoughts and feelings are impervious to change in the future.
How does the future even OCCUR?
For example…
We all know eye whiteness reports are unreliable.
That person just imagined a different past.
But, the argument is much deeper than that.
If a point of time can’t change, then how does motion occur?
[quote=“Ecmandu”]
PG wrote:
“People change their thoughts and feelings all the time Ecmandu.”
Ecmandu: It’s pure logic. If the past can’t be changed, peoples thoughts and feelings are impervious to change in the future.
Peacegirl: False
Peacegirl: How does the future even OCCUR?
For example…
We all know eye whiteness reports are unreliable.
That person just imagined a different past.
But, the argument is much deeper than that.
If a point of time can’t change, then how does motion occur?
Peacegirl: Who said we can’t change? Time is motion but all motion happens in the present. The past and future are thoughts in our mind only. We can make mistakes in our recall of the past. Anyway, this is way off track. This has nothing to do with the fact that we cannot reverse time and undo what has already been done. Therefore we cannot prove that a person could have chosen otherwise under the same exact conditions.
PG,
It’s not way off track. This is a philosophy board.
You just stated the past can’t change.
Do you have any idea what that means? It means all time froze forever and existence can’t exist.
Yes. Welcome to philosophy.
So… you’re saying someone can’t rewrite their past.
I’m using hard logic on you. I’m not trying to play word games with you. I’m challenging your premise.
As I’ve grown older, my interpretation of my past has changed radically. I see the whole thing differently. How is that any different than me traveling back in time and teaching my 16 year old self everything I know now?
Do you understand what I’m saying?
I’m saying… my entire past is reimagined…
If I couldn’t use my memories to work out my issues (my past is always with me) and talk to that person, I’d make no progress with that person.
That’s true of us all.
Are you purposely playing games with me? Of course as we mature we are able to look at the past with a different perspective, but what in God’s name does this have to do with the fact that we can’t reverse time and undo what was already done? Can you undo your last comment or what you did today?
Actually, I can edit my post. I won’t and that’s beside the point.
My point is that just like eye witness testimony is known to be unreliable, now we’re talking about memory. I changed my 16 year old interpretation as I grew older.
You also completely avoided the hard one I gave you.
If the past never changes, how can existence exist.
Once REAL philosophy enters the discussion, you run.
Actually, EC & Peacegirl, you’re both right. & wrong.
We can actually chrange the past when given the now entertained idea of an absolute light velocity. There is a time machine of sorts that actually disintegrates the self, and through which eternal succession can be apprehended.
The sense of self improvement through time is what’s getting in the way of realizing this.
How’s and why’s, let the ancient wisdom* solve this, as they have, and some of the fog will lift.
'*Annie Beasant, 'Ancient Wisdom ’
Ecmandu: PG,
It’s not way off track. This is a philosophy board.
You just stated the past can’t change.
Peacegirl: We cannot not do what has already been done. We can interpret what was done differently but that’s not what I’m talking about.
Do you have any idea what that means? It means all time froze forever and existence can’t exist.
Yes. Welcome to philosophy.
So… you’re saying someone can’t rewrite their past.
I’m using hard logic on you. I’m not trying to play word games with you. I’m challenging your premise.
As I’ve grown older, my interpretation of my past has changed radically. I see the whole thing differently. How is that any different than me traveling back in time and teaching my 16 year old self everything I know now?
Do you understand what I’m saying?
I’m saying… my entire past is reimagined…
If I couldn’t use my memories to work out my issues (my past is always with me) and talk to that person, I’d make no progress with that person.
That’s true of us all.
Peacegirl: Are you purposely playing games with me? Of course as we mature we are able to look at the past with a different perspective, but what in God’s name does this have to do with the fact that we can’t reverse time and undo what was already done? Can you undo your last comment or what you did today?
Ecmandu: Actually, I can edit my post. I won’t and that’s beside the point.
Peacegirl: Again, that’s NOT what I’m talking about.
Ecmandu: My point is that just like eye witness testimony is known to be unreliable, now we’re talking about memory. I changed my 16 year old interpretation as I grew older.
You also completely avoided the hard one I gave you.
If the past never changes, how can existence exist.
Once REAL philosophy enters the discussion, you run.
Peacegirl: How can the past change when all we have is the present? What already happened cannot be undone, but we can look back in hindsight and learn from it.
Peacegirl:Are you purposely playing games with me? Of course as we mature we are able to look at the past with a different perspective, but what in God’s name does this have to do with the fact that we can’t reverse time and undo what was already done? Can you undo your last comment or what you did today?
[/quote]
Ecmandu: Actually, I can edit my post. I won’t and that’s beside the point.
My point is that just like eye witness testimony is known to be unreliable, now we’re talking about memory. I changed my 16 year old interpretation as I grew older.
You also completely avoided the hard one I gave you.
If the past never changes, how can existence exist.
Once REAL philosophy enters the discussion, you run.
[/quote]
Meno: Actually, EC & Peacegirl, you’re both right. & wrong.
We can actually chrange the past when given the now entertained idea of an absolute light velocity. There is a time machine of sorts that actually disintegrates the self, and through which eternal succession can be apprehended.
The sense of self improvement through time is what’s getting in the way of realizing this.
How’s and why’s, let the ancient wisdom* solve this, as they have, and some of the fog will lift.
*Annie Beasant, 'Ancient Wisdom ’
Peacegirl; Show me a time machine that can go back to the past when all we have is the present. Time is the measurement of change from point to point. If you believe otherwise then you won’t agree with one of his premises and that’s okay. Time is not a dimension and it’s therefore impossible to visit it in a time machine [of sorts]. Therefore it’s pure science fiction. Not all science fiction turns out to be something science can actually achieve at some later date.