Freewill exists

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

All anyone can do is to provide the best arguments using all of the available evidence or proof and then present it as logically and precisely as possible
What happens after that is entirely beyond your control because only the one you are trying to convince can actually accept the argument in question

It can be frustrating to have one that you have made rejected but it is unfortunately an occupational hazard in online discourse
Mental energy can instead be much better employed on making the argument as linguistically and logically as perfect as possible

Also rejection may have nothing to do with the argument itself rather the bias or ignorance of the one you are trying to convince
Or maybe it is being rejected because it is flawed or fallacious in some way and it is therefore you who has to be convinced of this

No one has a monopoly on wisdom because no one gets it right all of the time. My own take on online discourse is to treat it as conversation
rather than argument as conversations are not about winning or losing but the free and open exchange of knowledge and ideas and opinions

Silhouette,

Apologies… I’m notoriously horrible at the quote function on boards.

I’m arguing that compatabilism is a monad, while a stance of absolute determinism or freewill is the dyad.

Karpel:

Light, in the sense of photons, is the subsistence of certain types of beings in existence:

The ones who laugh at us in astonishment and say: “they think with their meat”

These are photons determining photons, which actually isn’t a stretch for neurons determining neurons.

I’d additionally add to silhouette, you have major problems with self referential problems.

This reminds me of a guy who I told that if women and men went to all out war together, the men would win, because they controlled most the weapons and combat training. He stated, “that will never happen, it’s a logical fallacy to use the absolute non existence of something as support for an argument”

I leaned over and told him that it’s an inferential proof, in the same way that it’s impossible to count all the counting numbers, but we still know that the +1 algorythm causes a well ordered set.

He just scoffed at me.

Logical fallacies have self referential convergence points, and this seems to make your brain explode.

Actually! Let’s do this right here!

Give me one fallacy, any one you choose, and then I’ll demonstrate where it falls apart at convergence!

Also read what I just quoted.

An example of logical fallacies falling apart at convergence are for example “ad hominem”:

If the argument relies on the goodness of your character, pointing out flaws in character is not a logical fallacy.

Straw man: if the person who makes an argument is necessarily inferring something not stated, attacking this point is not a logical fallacy.

Ok! You pick one now silhouette!!

An altruistic motivation? I mean, I can’t say that isn’t one of my motivations, but if I’m honest banging my head against a wall usually has a more egocentric cause. I get invested in their changing and the lack of it bugs me on a more personal level. And frankly I am extremely skeptical that much good is done for the world in the manner of

I discussed things in a philosophy (or political) online forum and they changed their minds and now polices, practices and attitudes out there IRL are a little bit better. I don’t think people learn that way - experiential components are much more important, I think. And also the very process can have the opposite effect, that they harden into opinions.

This can even be couched neutrally, without evaluating the opposed arguments. I mean, it might be true that the better the argument the more backfire, but I think poor arguments will seem to confirm also. One of the most common phenomena I encounter online is that people think that because their opponents argument is weak, their own argument is right. This is especially clear when I find myself in a third position or agnostic and watch people justify their own positions by asserting that the other position is false, when in fact it is a false dillema. Both could be false. And even when one needs to be correct (iow the options are binary) two terrible arguments are competeing and neither is sound.

I think smart people are actually some of the most stubborn creatures on earth. They are so good at complexifying arguments and coming up with new attacks and defenses, it is much harder to make them uncomfortable. And sometimes, at least, they seem so sure of their having ‘open minds’ that when they dismiss arguments, implicit in the dismissal, is their sense that they, if not others, would have considered X more seriously if it had a chance of merit. I also find that academic smart people are often the last people to admit that this or that conclusion on their part was reached via intuition. they have this sense of themselves as having reached all positions via logical reasoning.

Which I see is also informally called Proof by repeated assertion, which is a nice shorthand for me. Thanks. I have been surprised to see how many very smart people do this. They don’t respond to points made and paraphrase their earlier posts. Iamb is a king at this. A giveaway is when people quote your whole post and then write a paragraph that is all over the place. a careful look will often find that nothing in that paragraphy actually responds to anything one wrote. Of course w hen they split up points in your post, then can still avoid responding, but I notice a higher liklihood that when they take the trouble to do this, they actually make efforts to respond to points, rather than use your post as inspiration to re-mull on the issue.

It’s true that one is also this, often, regardless. But once they control your actions through their stubborness and potential celebration (note that, their potential celebration) you are more like merely a facet of their lives. You have given over a range of options to one option, you must respond. In fantasies the characters must have a specific role, make that one choice again and again.

  • 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.

I don’t know what you are responding to that I have written here. I don’t rule out such types of sentience, at all.

I agree with your conclusion related to this hypothetical war. I have no problem with you saying that to that guy. So I have no per se. problem with such arguments. I don’t know what you are connecting the proposed weakness of mine to. I am guessing it is not something in this thread.

And my post to Silhouette above, had nothing to do with you. He made comments about you in response to me. I was talking about what he said and what it means regardless of who the interlocuter is. I was not thinking of you at all when I responded to him. I was thinking about what his self-evaluation meant.

LOL.

Oh, fuck Ecmandu, you have no idea about me. I don’t even believe the law of identity holds. Nor the law of the excluded middle. Now I have some understanding about you not knowing who I am and how I think. I tend to react here, rather than put forward my specific beliefs or tools or whatever. But really, you have no idea what does or does not make my brain get upset, let alone explode. And even if the above was by you communicated clearly - you know, like what you are responding to that I have said, the context and all that - it still has nothing I can see to do with me. A lot of assumptions and incorrect ones.

Yes, that was obvious man.

Dont worry, I won’t think less of you for trying to pretend you had. That was not below what I expected of you, since you are, after all, a leftist.

Shouldn’t be about winning or losing, you’re correct.

I would say it’s not about getting it right all of the time, it’s about getting it right eventually. Trial and error, natural selection.

Karpel,

Most of that entire post was directed ONLY at silhouette! Apologies if you took it as a reply to you in its entirety …

My issue in brief with you, and I may have mixed posts up, is I thought you made the claim that photons can’t be sentient. Because of this, they cannot have a measure of self will.

All the rest was directed at silhouette

A maze, a cage where getting it right never reaches the hard drive , only the periphery, which has to be repeated over and over, for the patterns of the maze can never be remembered, long term.
It’s possible that the reverse is true, then that is why it’s memory fails. Then, it takes on the form of a reinvented myth, Sysiphus.

Too much information to depict every one lifetime. It does get handed down and becomes ‘myth’ we have effectively wasted thousands of years repeating the same thing… it’s like me talking to myself everyday in the mirror all day… then wondering why my house is a mess. Maybe “wasted” is a bit of over statement but I think it may be true. We spend much more time than what we get in return it would seem, over multiple lifetimes by diverse views… the trial and error.

Why art and expression is important, to summarize and show truths through simplicity.

For most art devolves into images. Fragmented and superimposed, yet abstracted.it looses literacy admittedly , maybe genetically.

The freedom to will looses steam, because it needs the power which comes from unity.

Modernity looses unity, and hence the will to return. Mere descriptions and propositions have to afford semblance of bits of stimulation.

Zen art or. art of Zen adepts to simplicity. Minimalism can not encompass both.

Unless art is redefined to include both, then it becomes too general .

I do agree with art being a medium of artists talking to each other hoping what they are saying will be generally understood. And perhaps that is the object to general natural selective constant reassociation, of cut off elements.

But again, it takes both to tangle. In that way, Natural Selection is a very long term object, which ultimately will become a transcendent reality.

Until then art for set’s sake keeps guessing at a virtual object , keeps alluding to it’s position in life among strangers in a strange land.

Artimas: came up with a concept ‘superimposition’, and it demands the freedom of redaction of negative elements from undo assumptions of the negative sort, and not merely with a simple expression of regret toward begging to forebear such.

make it simple like the conspiring forces of earth and heaven make the water twinkle

.the failure of the new left, was the difference of attrition between the knowledge and the understanding of ideal objective elements from merely getting high on/from it.

If East and West can ever mutually get to understand …to know …of their benevolent intentions, the details of their super position need to be clarified, so as to alley the fear of the consequences of their actions.

I wish I could rename the thread.

Freewill doesn’t exist.

What we are talking about is self will, my mistake there!

I also didn’t want this post buried by subsequent replies (it’s a short post). I am not bothered by subsequent replies after this post, just didn’t want it to get lost.

viewtopic.php?p=2729503#p2729503

Yay!

Mind you, the will to change the title to “self” will is not so yay, but I’m proud o’you, buddy. I took the liberty of fully correcting the title for just my post :wink:

I dunno, man. We covered the difference between seeming overlap and actually converging “to the same thing” (think back to the computer programming analogy). There are no doubt plenty of circumstances where fallacies are less clearly being committed, but the distinctions remain - they don’t disappear just because the line between fallacy and non-fallacy is approached more closely. And edge-cases such as these certainly don’t bring into question the validity of fallacies in general!

I’ll explain how this applies to the examples you brought up:

This isn’t a logical fallacy “falling apart at convergence”, it’s a misapplication of a logical fallacy that doesn’t “fall apart at convergence”.

Consider “an argument that relies on the goodness of your character” - sticking to the logic of why someone’s character leads to a certain conclusion is fine if their reasoning for this conclusion is their goodness of their character. This remains within the premise(s)->conclusion structure being argued.
By contrast - not addressing the logic of why someone’s character leads to a certain conclusion, but instead attacking someone’s character as means to invalid their argument, irrespective of their logic of why it leads to their conclusion - that’s committing an Ad Hominem fallacy.
At the very best, the consequence of committing this fallacy might challenge the soundness of its premises, but the major issue is that it does not challenge the validity of the argument.
But even for the soundness of an argument - intention matters, and where the focus is being drawn to. If the intention is solely to challenge the soundness of the premise, you’re not committing a fallacy even if technically you’re attacking someone’s character, provided someone’s character is their premise. If your intention is to attack the person to undercut the argument prior to engagement at all with even the soundness of its premises, the fact that you would be unintentionally challenging its premises is incidental.

So as before, you’ve shown an instance where fallacy and non-fallacy come close, where the distinction is not as obvious, but the distinction doesn’t disappear.

By this, do you mean that someone making an argument may not realise the relevance of a counter argument, and mistakenly call said counter argument a Straw Man?

Sure, in which case it’s not a valid accusation of committing a fallacy. The person calling Straw Man is not committing a fallacy, they are simply mistaken. The correct and incorrect application of the fallacy remains in tact, even if someone does not realise whether it is appropriately applied or not.

Another example of where fallacies don’t actually converge, and certainly don’t lose their fallaciousness.

I don’t see how this guy’s use of “logical fallacy” applies here - “absolute non-existence” of what?

I’ll let you elaborate on what he meant by his comment here, if you also want me to show how there still won’t be any convergence point where fallacies lose their fallaciousness.

It’s entirely possible, and seems likely, that he’s just using the term logical fallacy incorrectly here.

My brain is fine, thanks for your concern :stuck_out_tongue:
I just don’t agree with your point that logical fallacies have self-referential convergence points - not in any way that undermines their fallaciousness that is. There can be self-reference to the extent that your examples exemplify, it’s just not a problem if there is any such “self-reference”.
So that’s a nope in the “major problems” department.

There’s a major problem with this though, if I’m understanding what you mean correctly.

Compatibilism between two types of argument is a monad? Are you implying that because the synthesis (of the thesis and antithesis of Free Will and Determinism) into Compatibilism can now be summed up in one term, that it then qualifies as a monad? It retains aspects of both its ingredients without really adding anything additional - surely Compatibilism is the dyad. I was under the impression that monads are indivisible, and Compatibilism is divisible. Perhaps what you want to emphasise is that its incorporation of two sides to a story makes it resemble a totality, but source matters from what I know about monads. Compatibilism is secondary, relying on its two ingredients - it is not singular and primary in its source.

Continuous Experience would be an example of a monad, and Discrete Experience a dyad. Determinism and Free Will are models of the latter, just as Compatibilism is. Experience itself, the singular fundamental substance with no other substances besides, is an example of Monism. Free Will requires Dualism, as I explained. I’m a Monist and the mind-body problem of substance Dualism is as insurmountable as any equivalent problem would be for any kind of substance Dualism - hence my 2nd argument against Free Will.

Again, I’m so relieved you’ve come around on this one. That’s one less Free Will advocate to deal with.

Silhouette,

Don’t pop open the champagne just yet!

I realized that a compatabilist cannot believe in “free”.

What I mean by this, is that I am not free to smoke a cigarette if there cannot be cigarettes in existence …

This is determined.

In the same sense, I cannot have a thought without the equivalent of a “neuron”, whether it be an actual neuron, a photon or even dark energy.

This in no way invalidates that the monad of determinism is not compatible with self will.

It’s a monad in the sense that ANY optical illusion is a dyad, but they are integrated as one thing.

I’m arguing that the monadic truth is that the dyad that you’re quibbling over is all in the same picture (to borrow the optical illusion analogy).

The famous optical illusion of the young woman and the hag, has a person like you saying “well, it’s just the hag!” (Just determinism).

Maybe you can’t see self will at all.

A visual example of this is those pictures with the dots, and if you look at it just right, it turns into a 3D image, instead of a bunch of meaningless pixels.

Some people CANT ever see the 3D image!!

So they get defensive and say things like, “I’m just trying to establish people away from dangerous ideas but they don’t listen to me”