Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 6:30 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 4:57 pmHenry, 'free will,' as something supposedly lacking mass, charge, or any other physical property

Shows how much you know. I -- a free will -- am 5' 8", and I weigh 150 lb.

I have mass, physicality, and umph.

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:34 pmhow do you define the "free" in "free will"?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 3:15 amAs I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:46 pm Coincidentally, I am working out the details of a new subsection in The 14-Week Email Course that deals on the mysteries of *levitation.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:55 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:34 pmhow do you define the "free" in "free will"?

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 3:15 amAs I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Meat Machine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:15 pmnada

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:23 pm

Meat Machine wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:15 pmnada

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:47 am A side benefit, reported by 85% of those who subscribe to The Course®, is tremendously improved agility and flexibility. The whole body is filled with lightness and buoyancy.

In my own case just the other day I tripped over an uneven sidewalk and performed a triple in-air forward somersault and landed cooly on my feet as if nothing. Surrounding pedestrians cheered!

Mike, please, consider taking The Course®, not merely to better your gymnastics but — Good God man! — you bore to tears!

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:55 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:34 pmhow do you define the "free" in "free will"?

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2025 3:15 amAs I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Ah, Henry, the self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, so generous to grace us with yet another stream of intellectual sewage. You claim to have "already explained" the "free" in "free will," yet your definition boils down to little more than a laughable tautology: "a person is the source of their choice." Bravo, philosopher-king! You’ve managed to restate the problem without solving a single piece of it.

You prattle on about choices "not being necessitated by prior events," yet conveniently ignore the fact that all choices—yes, even yours, oh mighty free-willed one—require a brain operating under the constraints of physics and biology. Are you the "source" of your brain’s structure? Did you handcraft your neurons in a cosmic workshop? No? Then kindly explain how you’re anything but a product of prior events and external forces.

But the pièce de résistance is your declaration that I’m an "example, not an opponent." Oh, Henry, that’s rich coming from someone whose arguments are so hollow they make a scarecrow look like a professor. You dismiss me as a "Roomba" because you can’t face the fact that your "free will" fantasy is as credible as believing the Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle. Keep spinning, Henry—it’s entertaining to watch you trip over your own contradictions while pretending to stand tall.

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 1:26 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 7:55 pm

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.



I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Ah, Henry, the self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, so generous to grace us with yet another stream of intellectual sewage. You claim to have "already explained" the "free" in "free will," yet your definition boils down to little more than a laughable tautology: "a person is the source of their choice." Bravo, philosopher-king! You’ve managed to restate the problem without solving a single piece of it.

You prattle on about choices "not being necessitated by prior events," yet conveniently ignore the fact that all choices—yes, even yours, oh mighty free-willed one—require a brain operating under the constraints of physics and biology. Are you the "source" of your brain’s structure? Did you handcraft your neurons in a cosmic workshop? No? Then kindly explain how you’re anything but a product of prior events and external forces.

But the pièce de résistance is your declaration that I’m an "example, not an opponent." Oh, Henry, that’s rich coming from someone whose arguments are so hollow they make a scarecrow look like a professor. You dismiss me as a "Roomba" because you can’t face the fact that your "free will" fantasy is as credible as believing the Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle. Keep spinning, Henry—it’s entertaining to watch you trip over your own contradictions while pretending to stand tall.

I've been trying to get Mr. Quirk to define the 'freedom' that he's always banging on about for yonks but his 'answer' is always the same: 'I have already done that'. It doesn't matter how far back you go it's always the same. Like a meal that's always 'leftovers', where you never discover what the 'orignal' meal was (because there wasn't one). As far as I've been able to decipher, it's simply 'law of the jungle', with Henry sitting in the middle of the jungle with his infinitely loaded gun...

BigMike wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2025 8:41 pmSo, Henry, let me get this straight. You just finished proclaiming that your "free will" is—you—your *physical, meat-and-bones self.