So here’s the deal iambiguous:
I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof
I gave you the abortion proof
I gave you political proof
And I gave you the freewill proof
…
Debate me.
I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.
So here’s the deal iambiguous:
I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof
I gave you the abortion proof
I gave you political proof
And I gave you the freewill proof
…
Debate me.
I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.
You’re in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.
Actually, aside from the iambiguous mutterings…
I just proved that freewill has to exist, in your thread.
It is absolutely on topic.
peacegirl: Ecmandu:So here’s the deal iambiguous:
I gave you the why existence exists instead of not existing proof
I gave you the abortion proof
I gave you political proof
And I gave you the freewill proof
…
Debate me.
I fulfilled all of your impossible tasks.
You’re in the wrong thread Ecmandu. Debate iambiguous elsewhere.
Actually, aside from the iambiguous mutterings…
I just proved that freewill has to exist, in your thread.
It is absolutely on topic.
If you think for one second that you proved free will true, this shows how utterly wrong your reasoning is. Prove to me that you could do otherwise, which is the only proof of free will that would hold weight. But it’s impossible to do, so you have no proof. You’re here because you have a beef with iambiguous.
Peacegirl,
Well, aren’t you quite the disingenuous person.
I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”
Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION…
Oh, how horrible I am.
Here’s is proof:
viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853
Reply to that!
It’s irrelevant to you. Therefore others are obligated to see it as irrelevant too? Even in an autononmous universe? After all, in a wholly determined universe, the laws of matter decide what we think we know is true or not true.
No no no iambiguous. Stop using “a wholly determined universe” as your “get off the hook” card that exempts you from answering directly.
No one is obligated to see anything they don’t want to see. I am not out of line to say that it’s irrelevant to know whether 1+1 is true in the entire universe to know that it is true here on earth and is the basic building block of many physical structures.
Unless of course nature obligates you to want to.
That’s not how the word “obligated” is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don’t desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it’s a new revelation.
And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it’s back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.
You’re not obligated to say anything you don’t want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.
It gets us somewhere because you simply dismiss all those “unknown unknowns” as irrelevant to that which you seek to convey here: that your own “progressive” future hinges on having enough people “choose” to grasp the author’s wholly determined point of view.
This new world is not dependent on your understanding specifically.
As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.
I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you’re talking about iambiguous.
My own “lack of interest” in correcting my understanding of them is, as you note, “beyond my control”, but: but that’s not an excuse for still refusing to.
Not to get too technical here but: Huh?
You are constantly using the excuse that you can’t help yourself in order to justify your responses, which is exactly what libertarians worry about, for all anyone would need to say is: I couldn’t help killing that person, nature made me do it and they would be excused. Do you see the problem here?
And the reason I’m not letting you…? Then around and around we go. Only I am more than willing to concede that my frame of mind here is beyond my own capacity to demonstrate as either free or determined. How on earth could I possibly know that given all that I am still unable to grasp about the objective relationship between “I” and “all there is”. If it is even objective at all.
The objective relationship between you and all there is, is irrelevant to the knowledge that life on earth moves in one direction only, rendering FREE choice an illusion, but a persistent one.
Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.
And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.
You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.
How in the world can our choices be free when we are under a compulsion to choose what gives us greater satisfaction from one moment to another? This is an invariable law that cannot be broken.
Yeah, that’s my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.
If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison’s discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?
You have the capacity but your way of thinking about determinism is so entrenched, I don’t think it’s possible to reverse.
Entrenched? Exactly!!
Or maybe others here may well succeed in helping me to understand the different ways in which being entrenched might be understood in a determined universe.
When you say “determined universe” you are implying that you are just a peg in a wheel. If we are to communicate you need to stop thinking that you have no choice before you do something. We were given the attribute of contemplation which is comprised of options.
No, when I say “determined universe” I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the “for all practical purposes” implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some “progressive” future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.
You’re off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.
You are using determinism to justify victim behavior. That’s all you’re doing, as if you can’t change your ways if YOU WANT TO.
No, I am pointing out that one very important consequence of embracing a wholly determined universe is that being a victim is just an illusion. You become only that which you were never able not to become. Wanting to or not wanting to is no less embodied in the laws of matter unfolding necessarily in accordance to…to what exactly?
Just because everything had to be does not mean we can’t prevent people from becoming victims (those that have been hurt by others) and it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t define the word.
[i]vic·tim
/ˈviktəm/
noun
a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.[/i]
Okay, but what on earth does this have to do with the point that I make?
You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you’re saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?
Note to others:
My polemical bent aside, what am I missing here?
Everything!
Peacegirl,
Well, aren’t you quite the disingenuous person.
I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION…
The two words are not synonymous.
Oh, how horrible I am.
Who said you’re horrible because you’re mistaken?
Here’s is proof:
viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853
Reply to that!
In a wholly determined cosmos, I’ll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god …
If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.
If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an “other”.
The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.
The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined …
That’s proof through contradiction.
And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me
That’s right iambiguous … I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?
Is this the post that you think proves free will?
Ecmandu:Peacegirl,
Well, aren’t you quite the disingenuous person.
I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION…
The two words are not synonymous.
Ecmandu:Oh, how horrible I am.
Who said you’re horrible because you’re mistaken?
Ecmandu:Here’s is proof:
viewtopic.php?p=2726853#p2726853
Reply to that!
Ecmandu:In a wholly determined cosmos, I’ll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god …
If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.
If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an “other”.
The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.
The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined …
That’s proof through contradiction.
And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me
That’s right iambiguous … I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?
Is this the post that you think proves free will?
Yes, it isolates the variables of 100% determinism and in proof through contradiction, demonstrates that a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos, its self evident that you are sentient, and thus it’s self evident that 100% determinism is false.
It’s also all true by definition.
You see, what I did peacegirl, like every great logitician, is that I used a proof (mine) from one field and applied it to a completely different field.
Peacegirl,
Well, aren’t you quite the disingenuous person.
I addressed you directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”Oh sorry!! I forgot, the word was SATIFACTION…
The two words are not synonymous. So now am I an ingenuous person?
Oh, how horrible I am.
Who said you’re horrible just because you’re mistaken?
Here’s is proof:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 3#p2726853
Reply to that!
In a wholly determined cosmos, I’ll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god …
If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.
If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an “other”.
The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.
The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined …
That’s proof through contradiction.
And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me
That’s right iambiguous … I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?
Is this the post that you think proves free will?
Yes, it isolates the variables of 100% determinism and in proof through contradiction, demonstrates that a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos, its self evident that you are sentient, and thus it’s self evident that 100% determinism is false.
It’s also all true by definition.
You see, what I did peacegirl, like every great logitician, is that I used a proof (mine) from one field and applied it to a completely different field.
A sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos
You are a sentient being
Therefore, 100% determinism is false.
You call that a great proof? I call that an invalid syllogism. Your very first premise is false so the conclusion is false. Secondly, where does your syllogism prove man’s will is free other than stating an opinion? Just to say a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos is not a factual statement. I think you need to offer your definition of determinism because confusion often arises due to semantics, just like you thought greater satisfaction meant greater pleasure.
Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.
You left out the precedent meat of the proof.
You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.
You know, the part where I described:
If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:
And all of those reasons are external
And/or
All of those reasons are internal,
Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.
This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.
Peacegirl,
I forgot my audience… so here we go!
If a being knows every reason why they know what they know: and!
All of those reasons are external ( ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM!!!)
And/or
All of those reasons are internal (ABSOLUTE CREATIONISM)
Then such a being cannot be a sentient being…
Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.
You left out the precedent meat of the proof.
You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.
You know, the part where I described:
If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:
And all of those reasons are external
And/or
All of those reasons are internal,
Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.
This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.
This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the risk of looking ignorant, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?
Ecmandu:Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.
You left out the precedent meat of the proof.
You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.
You know, the part where I described:
If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:
And all of those reasons are external
And/or
All of those reasons are internal,
Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.
This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.
This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the cost of looking stupid, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?
I’ll try, though I have to admit, it took me a while to make it that parsimonious and understandable. Thanks for bearing with me, because, as we all know from the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to bear arms! Even polar bear arms!
So here’s the deal, joking aside:
Think about this…
If you knew every reason why you knew what you knew, and through absolute determinism, all of those reasons were outside of you, example: I thought about dave because an acorn dropped in Libya …
Once this reaches 100%!!!
Everything is acting upon you, and you upon nothing.
Since it you upon nothing, it’s impossible (logically) for there to be a you
Is that better?
That’s only half the proof
peacegirl: Ecmandu:Umm… peacegirl… get ahold of yourself.
You left out the precedent meat of the proof.
You fabricated a syllogism as a straw man and really didn’t put the entire proof together.
You know, the part where I described:
If a being knows every reason why they know what they know:
And all of those reasons are external
And/or
All of those reasons are internal,
Then, they know no reason why they can possibly exist.
This causes a state of consciousness called “logical catatonia”, which makes such beings non sentient.
This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the cost of looking stupid, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?
I’ll try, though I have to admit, it took me a while to make it that parsimonious and understandable. Thanks for bearing with me, because, as we all know from the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to bear arms! Even polar bear arms!
So here’s the deal, joking aside:
Think about this…
If you knew every reason why you knew what you knew, and through absolute determinism, all of those reasons were outside of you, example: I thought about dave because an acorn dropped in Libya …
Once this reaches 100%!!!
Everything is acting upon you, and you upon nothing.
Since it you upon nothing, it’s impossible (logically) for there to be a you
Is that better?
That’s only half the proof
I was right. Your definition of determinism is the problem, not the fact that man’s will is not free once the accurate definition is clarified.
You offered no counter argument.
Let’s debate this, you and I
You offered no counter argument.
Let’s debate this, you and I
Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?
Ecmandu:You offered no counter argument.
Let’s debate this, you and I
Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?
I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive here.
You said that the TRUE definition of determinism would clear all of this up in a hurry…
What, 100 characters too much of a strain for you??
Also, I think you’re trixie …
peacegirl: Ecmandu:You offered no counter argument.
Let’s debate this, you and I
Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?
I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive here.
You said that the TRUE definition of determinism would clear all of this up in a hurry…
I said that if you have a different definition of determinism than I do, it will cause problems in our communication.
Ecmandu: What, 100 characters too much of a strain for you??
Peacegirl: Why are you being so sarcastic?
Ecmandu: Also, I think you’re trixie …
Peacegirl: Nope, I am not trixie.
You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence
Don’t play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.
Give me this definition and stop playing games.
You stated outright that your definition of determinism is THE accurate one (as a universal qualifier) which means: for all possible beings in existence
Don’t play games with me here, your exact words are only 6 short posts back.
Give me this definition and stop playing games.
Ecmandu, I am not playing games. You have had an aggressive attitude toward me from day one. We’re adults and hopefully we can enter into a calm conversation without verbal attacks. It’s clear that determinism rubs you the wrong way, and I do understand. I would feel the same way if I thought that we had no say in anything we do because the external (what you call determinism) gives a person no say, or makes him a non-entity.