Freewill exists

you’ve got more patience for the po-jama people than i ever had, sil, and i don’t know how you do it.

some people’s hot
some people’s cold
some people’s not very swift to behold
some people do it
some see right through it
some wear po-jamas
if only they knew it

It’s Determinism-ception.

Being determined to want to determine what you want etc.

More like an infinite points argument for Determinism with zero points argument for any degree of Free Will.

If I quit, they’ll just declare victory. I’m stuck, halp mee.

Haha dont worry lad, they declared victory a while ago.

You’re still in a binary state of mind.

Compatabilism is non binary …

You’re still an ape trying to evolve from the jungle, which is why this debate causes so many problems for you.

You’re the dualist, not me.

Project much?

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.

What caused them to be running that way?

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.

Silhouette,

You called yourself an “experience monist”?

You are aware that people have mutually exclusive experiences don’t you?

The only experience, though divergent in many ways, that everyone can relate to is that their consent is being violated.

Ethics then should all spring forth as solving this.

But, according to you, there’s nothing to solve because experience lacking identity is a monism: nothing to solve, right ? No work to be done, right ?

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.

I don’t like the way I said things in this post which is now edited to be this sentence.

(Except: its just the words that deceive us at first, make moot and real thought seem like its the same thing.)

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.

A determinist would say that then…

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’ll get to Karpel tunnel soon. A bit busy today.

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

In the future nano technology will become standard in humans thus rendering most or all of surgery obsolete
As it would act as a filter detecting among other things cancer cells and destroying them before they spread

As a consequence humans would morph from complete or virtual biological organisms [ like now ] into humanoids [ part machine / part human ]
Going to a doctor or surgeon would then become a thing of the past as human physicians would be replaced by the far more efficient nano tech

Oh he’s impossible for me to understand or even approach? Thanks for letting me know about my own brain, I’ve only had it all my life - how long did you borrow it for again?
Perhaps your Spinozan superpowers extend to faultless and complete telepathy merely from reading a few posts by someone - very impressive.

I guess I can continue to expect from you more of what you called “taunting”, and it looks like arguments from authority (appeal to accomplishment) too. The list of fallacies you’re making is off to a great start, keep it up.

Your bet is correct - I’ve never read any Spinoza, so you can now immediately assume absolute superiority based solely on this qualification of yours. Comfy now?
Is this more confirmation for you that I’d never be unable to understand him? That would be a nice fallacy to add to your collection.
I’m assuming from what you say, that you’ve read every single one of his arguments completely, but it doesn’t sound like you know many people in higher education if you don’t think many people have done what you’re implying you have.

From what I read about Spinoza, he sounded very similarly disposed to a lot things as I am, including being against Descartes’ Dualism and Free Will, like I’m arguing in this very thread, and being a Determinist - even upon application to humans - also exactly what I’m arguing… Even my own original argument against the existence of God was compared to Spinoza when I explained it to a PhD friend of mine from university.

But if the guy argues as fallaciously as you - the self-professed master of his philosophy claiming to use logic on par with him - I’m kinda put off…

I guess it’s just beyond simple beings like myself that Spinoza can use the False Dilemma and Argument from authority fallacies without issue - as you’ve been demonstrating so far.
I’m expecting great things from you.
What’s a prized argument you’ve made, Spinozan or otherwise? I need to fall to my knees in admiration asap plz. I want to believe you’re worth what you say you are, rather than what I’ve witnessed so far.

Oh dear…
You say that people have mutually exclusive experiences, there are lots of people, therefore plural tokens of experience.
You imply that I am not an “experience monist” as I claim, when I am using Monist in opposition to Dualist - which is two types of substance, generally mind versus matter.
In order for your argument to make the slightest sense, you’d have to be doubting my Monism (in type) by counter argument that there are Pluralist (tokens of) experiences.
This is a perfect example of or arguing by mixing up types with tokens…

You even go on to continue the same conflation with the following:

Your premise: Two tokens of experience can be incompatible.
Your conclusion: That’s not type-monism (as I’m using it when I say I am a monist).

You. are. conflating. the. two.

I hope you don’t mind if I “Lol” again…

Take your time getting back to Karpel + don’t feel like you need to let any continued discussion between us compromise it.

I can’t stress enough how much I don’t want you do compromise discussion with others to continue ours…

We talked about this before with another zealot who I now ignore. I feel like Ecmandu is not quite as bad, or at least not in the same way.

My problem is I can’t let go of the possibility of helping change the minds of people who believe in things that make the world worse. I’ve long been aware of things like Serendipper used to say about debates being pointless, and “the backfire effect” is my arch-nemesis: it seems like the better I refine my arguments, the more those I engage dig their heels in that their inferior argument is superior. I understand the psychology behind it and everything, but having spent a significant proportion of my lifetime mastering philosophy and argumentation techniques, it’s demoralising to see that they still come to nothing. I’m wondering if it’s only kids and smart people who know how to listen and learn - making my target of the remainder who make everything worse a poor choice on my part.

The defense mechanism you mention actually has a name: “Proof by Assertion” - the logical fallacy of continually restating an argument in spite of contradictions pointed out.

I don’t actually care if I end up conforming to your analogy of becoming a character in someone else’s fantasy - not just because this is kinda true for everyone including yourself - but because dumbasses like me feel a duty to try and enact change in the best way they can regardless of the cost to self shakes my head at myself.

Only biological organisms with a sufficiently complex mind can actually have free will and sub atomic particles have absolutely none
A photon in vacuum has to travel at the speed of light as this is a fundamental law of nature and one with precisely no free will at all