I’m referring to this post:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194893#p2725877
I still think the whole consent argument falls to what I was saying and not just the certain phrasing that you abandoned, but obviously you don’t agree.
I remember reading the words to the effect of “redundancy changes meaning and context” from before, but I don’t remember you showing more specifically what you meant by that + exactly what it applied to. Maybe it was on another thread that I hadn’t seen.
This is what you were saying on page 14 - “self-referential” in the sense that the neurons would be both determiner and determined, right?
This sounds like a similar argument to something like self-moving billiard balls, when really it’s just one ball moving a different ball rather than each ball moving itself: each neuron that’s determining another would be different from the neuron it is determining at any one time, even if the determining neuron was itself being determined by yet another neuron at the same time.
It’s not self-referential as soon as you start distinguishing between tokens instead of just types (deja vu).
And about it being sophisticated - again you’re suggesting that complexity yields freedom when it does not.
It is “banging our heads against language” in this case, because by “Wave-Particle Duality” it’s just that you need both models to explain certain phenomena at the quantum scale.
You might say that “what is being described” is like a monad, I guess, but the “duality” referred to in the terminology is just a throwback to times when we thought it was either one or the other - rather than reality literally being dualistic in substance type because both particle and wave models are needed for complete understanding.
Sure, this sounds fine.
What’s true for optical illusions and many other things doesn’t mean it also has to be true for other things, such as Free Will and/or Determinism. The analogy you use is fine for illustrative purposes, but analogy does not prove your point for Compatibilism: that “you just have to be able to appreciate both”. This is what Artimas was saying earlier in the thread. I dismissed it as an “Argument to Moderation”.
In some cases, there is a clear winner and we don’t have to get politically inclusive.
Still nobody has gotten past my 3 arguments from earlier - still Free Will is non-existent.
The people insisting it exists are simply defining “free” incompletely, such as “a higher quantity of known and possible options = more freedom”, when either way it’s all just as subject to physics - including the decision making process itself. Therefore “free” is the wrong word, no matter how valid it is to say that some things have more choices than others.