compatibilism

[Age]

Oh wait wait wait.. "I", "I", "I", "my", "my will", is this about the "I", the Eastern ego? I'm a nondualist, so this non-issue doesn't even register with me anymore. I no longer have/"am" the kind of "I" that you guys have/"are".

I can come at this from a non-dualist perspective also. Whether it's something like a Buddhist aggregate, or just the presents of 'willing' without an I that's willing. We still have forces, intentions present before the choice that affect the choice.

Further, you have now described a free will that has little to do with most free will positions out there.

LOL 'Most free will positions'.

'This one' says this like "atla's" one of many, many free will position could not be right because "atla's" own 'free will position' is different from the many, many other ones.

There's no 'I', and there is no limitation by the physical laws of the universe.

How do 'you' 'know' there is no 'I'? And, why do 'you' use the word 'I' as though there is an 'I'?

And, are you absolutely sure that there is no 'limitation' by the physical laws of the Universe?

I mean, for example, nearly every version of free will will talk about 'agents'.

Could every one of those many, many different versions of 'free will' be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect?

Could you define will in your conceived version of 'free will'.

Have 'you' defined the 'will' word, in any version of 'free will' that 'you' have, "iwannaplato"?

And, have 'you' defined the words 'free will', here?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

Umm.. it would be an idea stemming from my current self.

And wouldn't that idea have to do with your desires and motivations?

Not necessarily, I'd be free to choose things that go against my current desires and motivations, or are unrelated to them.

How could this be possible?

Let alone why would any human being even 'want' to 'go against' their 'current' desires and motivations, or why would they go with absolutely any thing 'unrelated' to 'their 'current' desires and motivations'?

Are you able to elaborate and clarify this?

If yes, then will you?

If no, then why not?

Also, 'we' do not want to hear 'more excuses' like, 'you would not be able to understand age'.

If you are able to elaborate and/or clarify here, then do it for the readers here. But, if you are not able to, then just do not do it.

[Age]

Oh wait wait wait.. "I", "I", "I", "my", "my will", is this about the "I", the Eastern ego? I'm a nondualist, so this non-issue doesn't even register with me anymore. I no longer have/"am" the kind of "I" that you guys have/"are".

I can come at this from a non-dualist perspective also. Whether it's something like a Buddhist aggregate, or just the presents of 'willing' without an I that's willing. We still have forces, intentions present before the choice that affect the choice.

Further, you have now described a free will that has little to do with most free will positions out there. There's no 'I', and there is no limitation by the physical laws of the universe.

I mean, for example, nearly every version of free will will talk about 'agents'.

Could you define will in your conceived version of 'free will'.

But this will would be the agent. It's agency itself.

So, when "atla" uses the 'will' word then it is referring to 'the agent', or 'the self', itself.

But, feel absolutely free to Correct 'me' if I am Wrong here "atla".

[Age]

Not necessarily, I'd be free to choose things that go against my current desires and motivations, or are unrelated to them.

Sure, and is this random or...what would lead you to pick option 235 over all the other billions or trillions of options?

Free will.

So, 'the free agent/self' would, now, lead 'the self' to pick another option. But, who and what is 'the self', which has 'another' 'agent/self', which leads 'one' to choose some thing.

Again, 'these ones', really, did not have a clue who nor what 'they' were, exactly. Nor, who nor what 'the self' and 'the agent' words were referring to, exactly.

[Age]

Just want to let you know that I don't spend time reading your responses. You take too much effort to talk to, so I opt out of it.

Just to let you know you will not have a clue just how irrefutable what I say and write here is, exactly.

[Age]

...

Fuck off, Age

This is how some actually did speak, and write, to others in a philosophy forums, of all places, so you can imagine how they spoke, and wrote, to each other, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written, outside of philosophy forums,

[Age]

See, this here is a prime example of why you human beings have been so lost and confused over this Truly very simple and easy issue or subject here.

No, you're being an asshole.

So, 'this one' believes, absolutely, that 'the words' above here are not a prime example of why these human beings, back when this was being written, were so lost and confused, over the Truly simple and easy subject of 'free will', 'compatibility', and 'determine'.

You don't understand the context of my response to Atla,

If this is what you want, and choose, to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

But then, to 'you' 'I' am being 'an asshole', anyway.

because you assume, for example, that I am looking for something other than HIS answer, in my post.

This could not be any further from the actual Truth. And, for a couple of reasons. But, you will not let this get in the way of your belief here.

I am trying to understand his position.

And, obviously 'your way of communicating' here is not working, again.

But you respond as if I am trying, in my post, to find THE answer, which you interpret as what you believe.

you assumption and belief here is absolutely Wrong again.

You make assumptions, based on this assumption, about what might be a relevant response.

Again, this continually making accusations and claims 'about me', which you will never ever even attempt to back up and support is all you can, and will, do here.

And again, you do this to 'try to' deflect away from the actual thing/s I am pointing and showing, and revealing, here.

But since you are not Atla, you don't know those answers.

And, from 'your way' of communicating you will never 'know' 'the answers' either.

Based on these assumptions you draw conclusions, and negative ones YET AGAIN IDIOT, bout humans in general.

Again, if this is what you, really, want to, and choose to, believe is true, then so be it.

The more you keep doing this, then the more you are proving me absolutely True and Correct here.

And you seem to lack the courage to notice all the assumptions here that you made.

Once again you attempt this WEAKEST of attempts to get 'your belief' across.

LOL One would have to 'have an assumption' to notice 'an assumption'.

Obviously, you ONLY 'assume' I have assumptions here.

And, you complete lack of ability to prove that I have one, let alone more, shows and reveals just how Truly inadequate you are here.

For thousands of years, hitherto when this is being written, you have been mistakenly talking about 'the choice/s' made, instead of just focusing on 'choice', itself.

No, I haven't. More assumptions.

'This one' has, once again, ABSOLUTELY MISSED what I have said, and meant.

The amount of times you do this "iwannaplato" would be completely 'unbelievable', if it were not for you proving how you do this in 'your very words' here.

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, and see if you can recognize what you MISSED, COMPLETELY.

LOL 'This one' is PROVING that on just about every occasion it claims that I have made 'an assumption' it is because a COMPLETELY FAULTY False and/or Wrong assumptions of its own.

You entered a conversation between to other people and suprise surprised based on your ignorance of the context for post, you made a lot of assumptons not only about me but about humans in general.

LOL False and Wrong, AGAIN.

This is riddled with fallacies, poor logic and, further, your utter inability to consider that that you have certain veryt glaring weaknesses in understanding and understanding communication.

AGAIN, 'this one' ALLUDES to some thing/s, but NEVER expresses what it/they are, DIRECTLY.

And, it does this because it knows if it did, then it could be, and would be, PROVED Wrong, ONCE MORE.

Everything is treated as an opportunity for you to take a certain position in relation to humans.

you human beings have been talking about this 'same issue' of this topic for thousands of years. And, 'look at' 'where' you, still, are.

you are, still, IN CONFUSION, and, still, QUARRELING and BICKERING with each other.

And, the very reason WHY this is, is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

And, the capitalized words are done, very specifically, to align with WHY it used to do it, previously.

And which why I did it will become blatantly obvious. Well to some of 'you' anyway.

Hey, well all make mistakes, but only the narcissists make mistakes with the regularity you do AND at the same time consider themselves to have or be able to get all possible knowledge

LOL Just 'look at' how you people used to talk to each other back when this was being written. The lack of knowledge that you people had, back then, was, and still is, blatantly obvious.

LOL you people cannot even just 'each' present your own personal definition/s for the words you use, and then start from there.

This is how Truly 'backwards' you adult human beings used to be, back in those very 'olden days' when this was being written.

I'm not interested in you or in trying to help you see any of this anymore.

Yet here 'you' are responding, again, while continually talking 'about me'.

Are 'you' absolutely sure that you are not interested 'in me'?

I'd appreciate it if you ignored my posts,

you come into a philosophy forum, hold some of the most ridiculous and illogical beliefs, believe some things that are absolutely impossible, absurd, and/or ludicrous, and make claims and accusations that are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, but would appreciate if I just ignored them.

LOL This is a philosophy forum "iwannaplato" I will critique, and respond to whatever I feel like.

I would appreciate that 'you' 'grew up' and learned to not post absolutely any thing, especially in a public forum, which you have not yet obtained actual proof for. If you did this, then you would appreciate, instead, others questioned and challenged you over what you said and claimed here.

Instead you come across as absolutely AFRAID of being questioned and/or challenged over what you say and claim here and INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting your beliefs and claims here.

I suggest changing websites/forums, or 'maturing' and obtain 'some courage', at least, to 'stand behind' what you say and claim here.

so I only see notifications from people I am interested in responding to.

you, like some others here, are not interested in responding to me BECAUSE you people are completely and utterly INCAPABLE of backing up and supporting what I challenge and/or question you people over here.

Of course you are not interested in 'those' who show, and prove, your Wrong.

And since you are an idiot about such things: of course you are free to respond.

LOL

This was a request from one person to another. Since, I've seen little respect from you for such requests in the past, I assume you will respond to this post and others of mine in the future.

Having 'respect', especially in a philosophy forum, one would 'take up' and 'accept' absolutely every critique, clarifying question, and/or challenge presented 'to them'.

Hey, why not prove that that assumption is false?

I would if you said and claimed things that were irrefutable.

Also, your assumption here is ABSOLUTELY True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, OBVIOUSLY, in that I will respond to this post, of yours.

Or was it in this case a perfectly accurate assumption on my part?

That will depend on if you say and write False accusations or claims, or not, and among other things.

Will you obtain actual proof for your claims and accusations here, and will you just say and write only irrefutable things here from now on?

[phyllo]

It's the Age of Spam

[Age]

I'm glad I clarified before that I do not believe most libertarians believe that, nor is that what I mean.

So, if what you said there was not what you, actually, meant, then what did you, actually, mean, exactly.

Although, and by the way, I have already written and expressed what you, actually, meant, for you.

You are too stupid for this my brother. You don't have enough reading comprehension for me to even bother. "if what you said there was not what you, actually, meant" if you had any reading comprehension, you'd know that what HE said is not what I mean, not what I said.

LOL
LOL
LOL

ANTHER one who MISSES, ABSOLUTELY, what I SAY, and MEAN, here.

If you, actually, READ, and UNDERSTOOD, what I SAID, and MEANT, you would SEE, VERY CLEARLY, that I KNEW, ALREADY, that what 'that one' said is NOW what you MEANT.

And, I had ALREADY PROVED this by SAYING and WRITING what you, ACTUALLY, MEANT.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN above, here.

How you could have MISSED this would have completely BAMBOOZLED me, if I did not ALREADY KNOW how and why, EXACTLY, you, and ones like "iwannaplato" KEEP MISSING things here.

You lack every quality i look for in a conversation partner, so we don't talk.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If only 'these people' KNEW. If only 'they' KNEW.

[Age]

Now could I, as this current human, make full use of free will, or could I only make choices that I can at least somewhat imagine? I don't know, maybe it's the latter, maybe not.

AGAIN, 'they' did not even KNOW what they were doing.

The words 'free will' do NOT, and I repeat do NOT, mean what 'this one' thinks nor believes here.

[Age]

...

You've no idea what you're talking about, and never will have. Now fuck off

LOL
LOL
LOL



The claim, 'you do not know what you are talking about,' is 'all' some of 'these people' had.

And, coincidentally, it was also 'the ones' who could not clarify, nor back up and support a SINGLE thing in regards to what I question and/or challenge them on, and about.

[Flannel Jesus]

It's the Age of Spam

He's trying to talk to 3 people at once right here, and literally every single one of them has said, in one form or another, don't talk to me.

Age, get the fuckin hint bro. You're impossible to have a conversation with.

Funnily enough you've improved drastically in that regard since the days when you used to format your posts like a lunatic, making them unreadable, but unfortunately the underlying thoughts and communication patterns are still just goddamn insufferable.

People don't want to talk to you. Do they have consent in the future? Is that still a concept or is it one you don't understand? Leave people alone.

[Age]

Now, considering the fact that not one of 'these people' here would just define the words they used here, I will begin:

'Free will', the ability to choose.

'Determinism', every thing that happens, occurs because of previous events/experiences. Which is more or less just 'cause and effect', in action.

The fact that all human beings have 'the ability to choose', while cause and effect happens, and occurs, is a compatible Fact, which is absolutely and irrefutably True.

In fact it is because both co-exist together, and are compatible that both exist, is HOW and WHY what all of you human beings want, and desire, is coming-to-be, and will exist, soon enough.

For those who want to disagree that the words 'free will' do not refer to 'the ability to choose', then explain WHY NOT, and explain what those two words refer to, EXACTLY.

Not that any of you here, will.

[Atla]

And you seem to lack the courage to notice all the assumptions here that you made.

Once again you attempt this WEAKEST of attempts to get 'your belief' across.

LOL One would have to 'have an assumption' to notice 'an assumption'.

Obviously, you ONLY 'assume' I have assumptions here.

Oh great, looks like the caps are back too since this interaction. But it's just a FACT for all of us to SEE that age is a TREMBLING COWARD who TOTALLY LACKS THE COURAGE to notice its own false assumptions.

[phyllo]

'Free will', the ability to choose.

It's better than free-will= "the ability to have acted differently in an absolute sense".

Which is an ability that nobody has, not even the free-willers.

So it makes sense for compatibilists to go with a more realistic definition.