Freewill exists

[Ecmandu]

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!

[Ecmandu]

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!!

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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*.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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 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'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 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.

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.

LOL.

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!

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.

[barbarianhorde]

Your bet is correct - I've never read any Spinoza,

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.

[Artimas]

My problem is I cannot let go of the possibility of helping change the minds of people who believe in things that make the world worse

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

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.

[Ecmandu]

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

[Meno_]

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.

[Artimas]

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.

[Meno_]

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.

[barbarianhorde]

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

[Meno_]

.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.

[Ecmandu]

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

[Silhouette]

I wish I could rename the thread.

Freewill doesn't exist.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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

My brain is fine, thanks for your concern
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.

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

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.

[Ecmandu]

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"

[Urwrongx1000]

Free-will does exist,

Ecmandu and Silhouette, you are both wrong.

[promethean75]

I wish I could rename the thread.

Freewill doesn't exist.

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

nice try, bub, but this new spin on it won't fly, either.

you're still thinking in terms of the 'will' being a phenomena... as if it were some kind of thing separated from action and brought to realization, revealed, through introspection. it's when deliberative intentions collide - when one finds oneself thinking about what one is doing and then changes one's mind about what to do - that the feeling of this illusory agency originates. the belief in 'will' is a side effect of that peculiar layering of 'inner' experience when standing back and recognizing that one is acting and doing. the belief that changing one's mind corresponds with a new kind of act that directs and distributes the act rather than being just another act, is the source of the misunderstanding.

try this: https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/ ... free-will/

you won't get W's point the first time around. maybe not even the second. so read it a few times and cross your fingers. the fly can be let out of the bottle, i assure you.

[Urwrongx1000]

Every 'Will' is free. They just don't know how or why. This is why Philosophy exists in the first place.

Humans don't realize they have choices. They only know their Needs, like basic animals. A person feels hungry, thirsty, tired, etc. A person feels pain and suffers. These are animal traits. Humans, supposedly, have evolved 'above' other Mammals, but in threads like this, it is hard to see how or believe as such, when most have a seeming desire to return to their animal, devolved-state.

Freedom is not in the Necessity of the instinct/reflex, but the reaction to it.


Most of humanity, I'd guess 99.5%, are not cognizant, simply oblivious, to their unconscious and subconscious desires. They manifest later on, and then humans become aware after-the-fact. This is why I call Silhouette's position backward. Because he, and many in this thread, are also looking backward. You can't start from the End, the "Choices", and work your way back, and call your position on Free-Will or Determinism accurate, because it's not.

What is the basis of Desire, except Need? And so what is the reaction to need, except Desire? Humans have an evolved trait of cognition and intelligence. Again, most don't know how or why they are creative in their problem-solving methods to handle basic needs, and then later on, advanced and evolved desires (like Fine Art). But the "Causes" can be traced to the Need. And from the Need, you need to then address how individual or groups of humans, react to such desires.


Why is one human a genius, but others are not? Why is one human creative, but others are not? Why is one human Superior, Excellent, Noble, Gifted, Intelligent, Admirable, but others are not?

It's easy to give up, and stop thinking. Those that do so, should call themselves "Determinists" because you basically admit giving up looking for Causes, Clues, and Mysteries, in your declaration.


Anti-Philosophical

[Urwrongx1000]

I won't make a habit out of agreeing with Prometheus. But he's right on that one.

[Silhouette]

Your bet is correct - I've never read any Spinoza,

Yes, that was obvious man.

You could tell that I've not read Spinoza because I called you out for committing logical fallacies?

I'm gonna go ahead and wait for you to say something that makes sense before I get on board with your insistence of superiority based on reading some books I didn't.

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.

And another logical fallacy to add to the list! "Guilt by Association".

It's really not looking good for you, man. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I've not reached these philosophical heights of which you speak that mean you can just go ahead and assume what you like on barely any evidence, and unrelated evidence at that. Be patient with me, oh high lord of fallacies and contradictory claims.

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.

An experiential component can be much more powerful than words, for sure. So relatively speaking, words don't do much good - but you hear all the time people changing their minds after reading books, e.g. by the "New Atheists" helping Americans in particular break out of the overwhelming influence of Christianity, especially in southern/central states. You might argue that these people were already disposed to doubt, but just needed the justification provided by educated and insightful writers. It seems like Ecmandu has refined his stance on Free Will with his explicit rejection of it in his latest post. Perhaps it was independent of the debate that's occurred here, perhaps it was all he meant to communicate all along, perhaps things like these would be his explanations even if this debate had actually had some influence unbeknownst to him. To his credit he did concede to a tautology I pointed out in a couple of particular phrasings relating to his consent thing on another thread. This is why I've taken to putting such emphasis on logic and fallacies lately - because everybody wants to be able to see themselves as logical. In line with this, put argument in a form that can't be denied and you make them think at the very least.

I would not say proof by action is necessarily superior to proof in words, as the former has its own barriers. For example, you can conduct as many successful tests of UBI as you like, but as soon as it gains enough attention to be tried on a wider scale, it can easily be slammed by the media, or simply run badly and reported to be a failure in itself rather than the management of it being the only failing component. I believe this actually happened in the UK not so long ago. You can conduct experiments of successful non-Capitalistic society, and either it'll be criticised as only working at small scales and not in the wider real world, or the funder will be branded a Champagne Socialist and a hypocrite for only becoming successful enough to fund something anti-Capitalist by means of the Capitalist system etc.
tl;dr "The Problem of Induction". At least with words you can deduce necessity through the use of logic, which leaves much less open to doubt - but the problem of a biased audience who may be unable/unwilling to accept this goes for either approach.

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.

No disagreement there.

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.

Perhaps you would allow the argument that said people are not actually smart, as evidenced by their inability to adapt and overcome subbornness? For sure they are able to form more complex mazes for you to navigate to get to the bottom of their argument, but if you're genuinely smart enough even greater obstacles such as these can be overcome.
I actually have personal experience of actively trying to get into unpopular mindsets that don't come to me naturally, and suffering tangible degrees of social admonishment as a result.
The tendency of people to attribute reason to the foundations of their conclusions more than intuition sounds like some kind of psychological "Attribution Bias" - it probably applies to less smart people as well as smarter people.

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.

Yeah, I've seen this as well, though I'm not actually that familiar at all with Iamb - I've seen his name around the place for very many years, but never actually engaged him properly if I remember correctly.

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 in all good stories, characters overcome and transcend their former vices I guess it's not a coincidence that clear protagonist/antagonist storylines have the most mass appeal - they're probably intended to cement moral tropes in kiddy stories to teach young ones right from wrong, but to adults its to allow the viewer to identify with a hero in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. It's encouraging that morally grey and complex entertainment like "Game of Thrones" and even Marvel's "The Avengers" with Thanos has caused such a ripple in the face of 1-dimensional Hollywood-style mediocrity, but even GoT was dilluted to clear good versus evil tropes by the end. Depending on the complexity in personality of this forum's readers, they may simply be looking to box you either as "ally" or "enemy" - this is unfortunately true. You've witnessed me being well-and-truly boxed in this way yourself on another thread - it takes me a long time to give up on someone, but I did get round to it eventually in that guy's case.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette!

I didn't concede the consent tautology!!

I've already told you twice that redundancy changes meaning and context, I even took the time to write out the truth tables to prove it to you!!

It's false? Or it's false that it's false?

See?!?!?!

From everything we know, neurons are ordering neurons how to be neurons.

If we suck at doing this, we'll eventually build tools with neurons that make neurons do what we want neurons to do.

That's very sophisticated self referential behavior for beings that have no self will whatsoever.

It's interesting, that science calls something the particle / wave DUALITY, when actually, it's a monism.

But then we're always banging our heads against language

Edit: it's not a particle OR a wave (duality) it's a particle AND a wave (the monad)!

[Silhouette]

Silhouette!

I didn't concede the consent tautology!!

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've already told you twice that redundancy changes meaning and context, I even took the time to write out the truth tables to prove it to you!!

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.

From everything we know, neurons are ordering neurons how to be neurons.

If we suck at doing this, we'll eventually build tools with neurons that make neurons do what we want neurons to do.

That's very sophisticated self referential behavior for beings that have no self will whatsoever.

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's interesting, that science calls something the particle / wave DUALITY, when actually, it's a monism.

But then we're always banging our heads against language

Edit: it's not a particle OR a wave (duality) it's a particle AND a wave (the monad)!

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.

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.

Sure, this sounds fine.

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"

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.

[Ecmandu]

You're talking about billiard balls as neurons. Nobody considers billiard balls to be sentient.

The truth is, no matter how you look at it, we are using neurons to decide how we want neurons to fire.

[surreptitious75]

You think that photons are certain type of beings in existence which makes no sense at all
Because they are not aware of what they do but just do it according to the laws of physics

[Karpel Tunnel]

You think that photons are certain type of beings in existence which makes no sense at all
Because they are not aware of what they do but just do it according to the laws of physics

You can't know from the outside what isn't conscious. Problem of other minds and all that. Everything follows the laws of physics, except when the laws change, which they have done in different periods of time (and for all we know space) so it might be better to call them patterns or habits (leaving open room to change). We don't know what causes consciousness, though there are some common assumptions which make those with those (various) assumptions confident.