Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:42 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:19 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.
Excellent posts. Odd that MigBike keeps arguing FOR free will though

True. Arguing that we "should" believe in determinism seems paradoxical.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:44 am**

BigMike’s entire argument — what really moves him — is based in an ulterior motive. I suppose that the same is likely true for the main proponents of those arguments that attempt to convince a person that he does not have agency.

For this reason, BigMike reveals the actual basis of his neurophysiological ideology: to condition human behavior along certain lines — political and social.

For this reason he is committed to undermining “agency” in a given individual and is committed to convincing the individual that he is unfree — like that solitary molecule of water trapped in a current; like his simile of a “rolling rock”. Pay attention to the metaphors.

Examine and analyze the purpose (the consequence) of the ideology in order to understand why it is convenient.

My analysis is far more sound: we certainly exist within frameworks that have been determined and over which we do not have control. For example having our being on this planet and within material systems. We cannot make a decision from outside our circumstances since, obviously, we are inside of circumstance.

To say, and to believe, that something inside us, other than our selves, makes all decisions and in this sense is similar to a “falling rock” is, in my view, a pathological idea. If one fully believes that, one has capitulated to a significant pathology.

Though we live within significant unconsciousness — the argument states that decisions are made in this unconscious area and this by-passes what in us is conscious, and therefore we do not have genuine agency or absolute agency — we do indeed have the capability to intervene, more especially when it comes to consequential decisions — moral decisions.

One must stop and examine why any theorist would work to undermine that specific type of agency and “describe” (define, explain) man as an entity to be controlled and channeled like a water molecule, like a substance captured by gravity: agency-less.

This is sociology combined with physiology, and politics combined with rhetoric and psychology.

And obviously it is part-and-parcel of a specific type of atheistic ideology that undermines what is human by cutting man away from a conceptual possibility of relationship with a metaphysical and supernatural potency.

(All of this has been brought out in other parts of this thread).

I am trying to discern “what sort of mind” is susceptible to the insistent rhetoric that Mike employs. His ‘logic processes’ mirror mathematical structure, that is true. He has honed his “rap” and remains consistent, yet in the end everything that goes on here and has gone on here negates the conclusion of those minded in this way.

And there is where the absurdity arises. To ‘convince’ is a causal undertaking. To convince someone is evidence of causal activity and precisely that “agency” that is observable to those using common sense.

Therefore, I stand EXACTLY where I stood when I began in this conversation: we have a unique and if you will a special type of agency which may be largely unexplainable and even mysterious basis (having a causal basis we do not understand). That agency is often over-powered by unconscious forces that still exist within our being and cannot be said to be conscious.

And yet any man can prove to himself that in the important areas, and within his context, he indeed has agency and can use it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:19 am**

Karl Popper:

“The true Enlightenment thinker, the true rationalist, never wants to talk anyone into anything. No, he does not even want to convince; all the time he is aware that he may be wrong. Above all, he values the intellectual independence of others too highly to want to convince them in important matters.” — On Freedom (1958)

What interests me personally (in this conversation and of course generally) is the sort of man, in a sort of environment, in a specific juncture in intellectual history, whose ideas seem — to me in any case — tyrannical.

But it is less about any particular man (you seem a symptom Mike) and more about the force of ideas that come to dominate a society or cultural perspective.

From that one must step back and examine things carefully.

It is when we contemplate the True Believer and his ultra-convincing discourse, and perhaps also ideological assertions and a sense of conviction that come at one from all sides, that intellectual coercion must be thought about.

Here the psychological factors have to be considered.

At the core, and speaking honestly, BigMike employs coercive arguments that have the tone of scientific absolutism. No arguments are possible against the facts.

But there sure seem to be some good reasons to hold back from giving consent too readily.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 6:26 am**

Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:09 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:36 am
If the scientific FS is not to be the gold standard of credibility and objectivity, what is your alternative? or give the possibility there could be a better approach?
The scientific FS, as you put it, in no way needs to be the gold standard of credibility and objectivity. It is, to my mind, superfluous to mention it as such. A gold standard does not preclude others from existing against which the GS is judged to be the highest and most affirmative. What makes your question unnecessary is that rivals to the scientific method don't exist. Its methodology depends completely on its entries into a probability index which, of course, is subject to revision by upgrading or downgrading as more information becomes available. Being human, we have only trial and error accessible to us which creates, in effect, a probability ladder which continually shifts. A GS, in contrast, describes that which is relative and most adhered to in the current age...relative to other possibilities. The scientific FS stands alone in that function; there are no other rivals. It's misleading to designate it as a Gold Standard having relevance to other standards which, in this case, don't exist.

Your view is shallow and narrow:

SEP wrote:Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods, results, and scientists can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better.
Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry.
Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... vity/#Intr

I have the answers but AI could present it more effectively;
If we do not establish an acceptable gold standard at present, then every thing get loose.
For example, in the case of medical, nutritional, legal, decisions, a science-based decision would be generally be more credible & objective than that based on customs, intuition, first person witnesses and folklores.

AI Wrote:

Here are several fields of knowledge that generally have a lower degree of credibility and objectivity compared to the scientific FS, along with how this comparison is useful:

1. Philosophy
Lower Objectivity: Lacks empirical verification, relies on logical reasoning, conceptual analysis, and argumentation. Competing frameworks exist with no decisive method for resolution.
Comparison Utility: Highlights the need for structured methodologies like FS to assess conceptual coherence and systematic validity rather than arbitrary preferences.

2. History
Lower Objectivity: Relies on interpretations of past events based on limited and often biased records. Subject to historical revisionism and differing perspectives.
Comparison Utility: Demonstrates that while history strives for factual accuracy, its objectivity is constrained by incomplete evidence and human interpretation.

3. Economics
Lower Objectivity: Uses mathematical models but is influenced by ideological perspectives, assumptions, and unpredictable human behavior.
Comparison Utility: Shows that even fields using quantitative methods may lack scientific FS-level objectivity due to model-dependent interpretations.

4. Psychology
Lower Objectivity: While increasingly empirical, it faces challenges in reproducibility, subjective experiences, and theoretical bias.
Comparison Utility: Illustrates that even in empirical fields, framework and system limitations affect credibility, reinforcing the FS approach.

5. Law and Jurisprudence
Lower Objectivity: Legal interpretations depend on precedent, social norms, and subjective judicial reasoning rather than empirical testing.
Comparison Utility: Emphasizes that rational and systematic evaluation (FS approach) helps in structuring laws more objectively.

6. Literary Criticism & Aesthetics
Lower Objectivity: Interpretations are influenced by cultural, personal, and subjective biases rather than testable hypotheses.
Comparison Utility: Shows that while rational criteria exist, the absence of empirical falsifiability limits objectivity.

7. Theology & Metaphysics
Lower Objectivity: Based on faith, tradition, or speculative reasoning rather than empirical evidence.
Comparison Utility: Demonstrates that claims outside the scientific FS lack an objective ranking system based on rational and empirical standards.

How This Comparison is Useful
Strengthens the Gold Standard Claim: It reinforces why the scientific FS is the highest standard of objectivity and credibility.

Clarifies Degrees of Objectivity: It acknowledges that other fields can have structured methodologies but lack the empirical rigor of science.

Supports the FS Approach: It validates the necessity of a systematic ranking methodology to differentiate between varying levels of credibility.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:13 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:18 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:09 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:03 am

What is your expert opinion of the calculation that ChatGPT gave me? Does it look like a reasonably good application of Bayesian logic, are you able to tell?
Yes, assuming an initial 50/50 split between determinism and free will is a neutral starting point, but personally, I would have placed the prior probability of determinism much higher than 50%. The fundamental laws of physics—conservation laws, the four fundamental interactions, and everything we know about causality—already overwhelmingly favor determinism before we even introduce neuroscience into the equation.

So while Bayesian updating is useful for refining probability estimates based on new evidence, in this case, the real question is: why start at 50%? Given that there has never been a single confirmed instance of something—anything—acting independently of causal influence, a more reasonable a priori estimate for determinism would be significantly higher.

As for the Bayesian calculation itself, without going into the specifics of ChatGPT's probability assignments, the general structure looks sound. It correctly accounts for the likelihood of experimental findings given determinism versus given free will. However, what really matters is that as more experiments accumulate, this probability will only shift further in favor of determinism—just like how conservation laws have been confirmed over and over again. And since free will still lacks any demonstrable mechanism, its probability should asymptotically approach zero.
Pardon my nitpicking but wouldn't "soundness" apply to a deductive argument? Isn't Bayesian logic inductive? Wouldn't the word more properly be a "strong" argument? And if the premises are true then it would be "cogent"?

You're absolutely right to make that distinction. "Soundness" is a term used in deductive reasoning, where an argument is both valid (its conclusion follows logically from its premises) and has true premises. Bayesian inference, on the other hand, is a form of inductive reasoning—it doesn’t provide certainty but rather updates probabilities based on evidence.

A better term would be that the Bayesian argument is strong if the probabilities are correctly applied and reasonable given the available data. And if the premises (i.e., the experimental results and the prior probability assignments) are also true or well-supported, then yes, the argument would be cogent in the context of inductive reasoning.

Good catch! Precision in language matters, especially when discussing probabilistic reasoning.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:20 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:42 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:19 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.
Excellent posts. Odd that MigBike keeps arguing FOR free will though
True. Arguing that we "should" believe in determinism seems paradoxical.

Ah, the classic gotcha—as if discussing determinism somehow refutes itself by implying choice. But let’s clear this up.

Arguing for determinism isn’t an appeal to should in the moral or volitional sense. It’s an argument that follows from the available evidence—conservation laws, fundamental interactions, neuroscience, and everything we understand about causality. The fact that I’m explaining determinism and that others react to it doesn’t imply free will; it just means that our discussion is part of the deterministic web of cause and effect.

Your reaction, your skepticism, my response—it’s all determined by prior causes. There’s no contradiction here, unless you mistakenly assume that arguing for determinism must imply some kind of volitional endorsement of it. It doesn’t. It’s just the unfolding of causal processes—including the process of correcting misunderstandings about determinism.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 8:58 am**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:44 am BigMike’s entire argument — what really moves him — is based in an ulterior motive. I suppose that the same is likely true for the main proponents of those arguments that attempt to convince a person that he does not have agency.

For this reason, BigMike reveals the actual basis of his neurophysiological ideology: to condition human behavior along certain lines — political and social.

For this reason he is committed to undermining “agency” in a given individual and is committed to convincing the individual that he is unfree — like that solitary molecule of water trapped in a current; like his simile of a “rolling rock”. Pay attention to the metaphors.

Examine and analyze the purpose (the consequence) of the ideology in order to understand why it is convenient.

My analysis is far more sound: we certainly exist within frameworks that have been determined and over which we do not have control. For example having our being on this planet and within material systems. We cannot make a decision from outside our circumstances since, obviously, we are inside of circumstance.

To say, and to believe, that something inside us, other than our selves, makes all decisions and in this sense is similar to a “falling rock” is, in my view, a pathological idea. If one fully believes that, one has capitulated to a significant pathology.

Though we live within significant unconsciousness — the argument states that decisions are made in this unconscious area and this by-passes what in us is conscious, and therefore we do not have genuine agency or absolute agency — we do indeed have the capability to intervene, more especially when it comes to consequential decisions — moral decisions.

One must stop and examine why any theorist would work to undermine that specific type of agency and “describe” (define, explain) man as an entity to be controlled and channeled like a water molecule, like a substance captured by gravity: agency-less.

This is sociology combined with physiology, and politics combined with rhetoric and psychology.

And obviously it is part-and-parcel of a specific type of atheistic ideology that undermines what is human by cutting man away from a conceptual possibility of relationship with a metaphysical and supernatural potency.

(All of this has been brought out in other parts of this thread).

I am trying to discern “what sort of mind” is susceptible to the insistent rhetoric that Mike employs. His ‘logic processes’ mirror mathematical structure, that is true. He has honed his “rap” and remains consistent, yet in the end everything that goes on here and has gone on here negates the conclusion of those minded in this way.

And there is where the absurdity arises. To ‘convince’ is a causal undertaking. To convince someone is evidence of causal activity and precisely that “agency” that is observable to those using common sense.

Therefore, I stand EXACTLY where I stood when I began in this conversation: we have a unique and if you will a special type of agency which may be largely unexplainable and even mysterious basis (having a causal basis we do not understand). That agency is often over-powered by unconscious forces that still exist within our being and cannot be said to be conscious.

And yet any man can prove to himself that in the important areas, and within his context, he indeed has agency and can use it.

Ah, Alexis, the ever-elusive philosopher, the master of insinuation. You float the idea that I have an ulterior motive, that I am conditioning human behavior along certain lines, yet you never quite dare to say aloud what you clearly mean to imply. You seem to think there is some grand ideological scheme at play, yet you never lay out exactly what this sinister agenda is. So, let’s stop dancing around the issue. Let’s get right to it.

You say I’m undermining human agency. Fine—then explain, explicitly, what personal moral responsibility means given determinism. What does it mean to deserve praise or blame if actions are causally determined? What does meritocracy even mean in a deterministic world? And let’s not stop there. You clearly have metaphysical leanings—so tell me, what do salvation and damnation mean under determinism? What does justice mean? What does punishment mean? If you want to explore the implications of determinism, let's do it.

You want to talk about my supposed “political or social agenda”? Let’s have that discussion. Lay it all out—what do you think I advocate for? What exactly do you believe is at stake? Is your concern that accepting determinism necessitates a reevaluation of traditional moral, social, and political structures? If so, then let’s talk about what those structures are, what assumptions they rely on, and whether they hold up under scrutiny.

Take your pick, Alexis. Which of these subjects would you like to start with? Or shall we cover them all? But let’s be clear about one thing: you don’t get to hide behind vague insinuations. You don’t get to imply that determinism has dangerous consequences while avoiding any substantive discussion of what those consequences actually are. If you’re going to make accusations about my motives, then back them up. Clarify your position. Lay out your reasoning. Otherwise, all you’re doing is posturing—throwing rhetorical smoke grenades to obscure the fact that you have no real counterargument to determinism itself.

So here’s your opportunity. No more sidestepping, no more evasions. You’ve insinuated plenty—now put your cards on the table.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 9:27 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:42 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:19 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:33 am Here's a picture of the Bayesian calculation I was given. When I try to paste it into text the variables are all down the side of the page:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/pictu ... site/80942

For the record I couldn't do a Bayesian calculation if my life depended on it. I just know it's heavily used in the sciences. But the above is what ChatGPT did if anyone familiar with Bayesian logic wants to check it.
Excellent posts. Odd that MigBike keeps arguing FOR free will though
True. Arguing that we "should" believe in determinism seems paradoxical.

Idiot.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 9:31 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 9:27 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:42 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:19 am

Excellent posts. Odd that MigBike keeps arguing FOR free will though
True. Arguing that we "should" believe in determinism seems paradoxical.
Idiot.

What's got you worked up?

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:17 pm**

Ah, Alexis, the ever-elusive philosopher, the master of insinuation. You float the idea that I have an ulterior motive, that I am conditioning human behavior along certain lines, yet you never quite dare to say aloud what you clearly mean to imply. You seem to think there is some grand ideological scheme at play, yet you never lay out exactly what this sinister agenda is. So, let’s stop dancing around the issue. Let’s get right to it.

All of this was “said out loud” in posts weeks back! You didn’t read nor pay any attention apparently.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:36 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:17 pm
Ah, Alexis, the ever-elusive philosopher, the master of insinuation. You float the idea that I have an ulterior motive, that I am conditioning human behavior along certain lines, yet you never quite dare to say aloud what you clearly mean to imply. You seem to think there is some grand ideological scheme at play, yet you never lay out exactly what this sinister agenda is. So, let’s stop dancing around the issue. Let’s get right to it.
All of this was “said out loud” in posts weeks back! You didn’t read nor pay any attention apparently.

So let's talk about it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:47 pm**

Here’s the deal, BigMike. The larger part of your position was critiqued successfully in the first 6 pages of this thread. On page four I expressed my view and again here.

As you know — I indeed said it out loud — I think you are psychologically obsessed with your ideological position. The evidence is in the way you frame and describe the sound perspectives people bring to your attention. Look over the first four pages and (perhaps) you will understand. If you can’t or won’t — I cannot help you.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:04 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:47 pm Here’s the deal, BigMike. The larger part of your position was critiqued successfully in the first 6 pages of this thread. On page four I expressed my view and again here.

As you know — I indeed said it out loud — I think you are psychologically obsessed with your ideological position. The evidence is in the way you frame and describe the sound perspectives people bring to your attention. Look over the first four pages and (perhaps) you will understand. If you can’t or won’t — I cannot help you.

Here you are again, rehashing vague critiques and gesturing toward intellectual traditions as though that alone settles the matter. And yet, for all this lofty talk of metaphysical lenses and intellectual history, you still haven't engaged with the fundamental question: Do you accept or reject the conservation laws and fundamental interactions as the basis of all physical phenomena? Because if you accept them, then you are bound by their implications. And if you reject them, then let's hear your model—what laws of nature do you propose in their place?

You speak of “qualified first-rate metaphysicians” as if invoking their authority somehow makes free will a viable concept. But metaphysics, like any field, does not get to operate in a vacuum. It must answer to reality. You can wax poetic about “the issue of meaning and value” all you like, but none of it matters if it rests on premises that contradict observable, demonstrable reality.

And let’s talk about your fixation on what is "lost" if determinism is widely accepted. You frame it as though recognizing reality is a threat rather than an opportunity. What exactly do you think collapses if people stop believing in an unscientific notion of free will? Are you afraid that concepts like responsibility, justice, and morality will crumble? If so, then let’s discuss that. Let's talk about what personal moral responsibility means given determinism. Let's examine what meritocracy, punishment, salvation, and damnation mean in a deterministic world. If your concern is about the social implications of determinism, then make that argument explicitly instead of dancing around it with appeals to tradition and intellectual history.

And then there's the sheer irony of your claim that I am psychologically obsessed with my position. You, Alexis, the man who has spent how many pages trying to dismiss determinism, not by refuting its premises, but by insisting that it is somehow incomplete, reductionist, or dangerous? Tell me, what is your real objection here? Is it that determinism lacks explanatory power? Because it demonstrably does not. Or is it that you simply don’t like what it implies? Because if your issue is emotional rather than intellectual, then let's be honest about that.

So, Alexis, let’s get to the point. Do you deny the fundamental laws of physics? Do you reject the conservation laws? Do you dispute that every known action is the result of prior causes? Or do you simply refuse to follow those premises to their inevitable conclusion because you don’t like what they say? Stop hiding behind vague critiques and insinuations. State your position clearly, justify it, and defend it with evidence. Because otherwise, all of this is just hand-waving and avoidance.

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 2:00 pm**

The Hyperborean Apollo waxes nostalgeo-philosophic ….
_________________

I HAVE AT TIMES asked myself: “Who are all these people? And why do they participate in this forum and — generally speaking — bicker more than converse?”

The psychological always impinges, I think. We are in a desperate age where larger, defining meta-narratives are collapsing and we, individuals, are bereft of “ground” on which to stand. Angst-ridden people, though, still need to interact, even if it is dysfunctional and not often satisfying. But I will leave that aside.

I have already and at length shared with you my present perspectives — in post after post after post. I do this (as I plainly state) for my own purposes. And I am conscious of my purposes on an intellectual plane while also aware of the unconscious (or semi-conscious) factors that motivate my own behavior. I have at times thought that through argument (confrontation, disagreement) we seek to keep ourselves alive. And that term “alive” applies in so many different areas.

And here is a key to help understand “what I am doing here”: I live in a largely rural area of Colombia and no one of the friends I have here has any interest in philosophy, theology, contemporary events, sociology, the ins and outs of The Culture Wars, nor the goings-on in America.

That said — and this is sort of a pathetic confession — this forum is my “intellectual world”.

Oh God, why hasten thou forsaken me!

Now, within this …

And let’s talk about your fixation on what is "lost" if determinism is widely accepted. You frame it as though recognizing reality is a threat rather than an opportunity. What exactly do you think collapses if people stop believing in an unscientific notion of free will? Are you afraid that concepts like responsibility, justice, and morality will crumble? If so, then let’s discuss that. Let's talk about what personal moral responsibility means given determinism. Let's examine what meritocracy, punishment, salvation, and damnation mean in a deterministic world. If your concern is about the social implications of determinism, then make that argument explicitly instead of dancing around it with appeals to tradition and intellectual history.

… there are many topics that are quite interesting. But the problem — your problem — is that you seek to Battle Windmills in your Mega-War against those who believe things that you cannot, such that you are not a very pleasant conversationalist. You lack a certain literacy …

Look at your first posts in this thread and — perhaps — you will see what I mean.

So far, I have explained where I stand in relation to this PROBLEM that consumes you. I certainly am not going to repeat it all over again. Look back over the first 20 pages. It is all there!
________________

Now, onto important business! I am beginning to market my own line of pharmaceuticals and one in particular called Resolution®.

(Gary please take note!)

Take just one and all doubt, all internal conflict, disperses! (The price-point is steep: $6,999.00 but the results are guaranteed!

“My ways are not your ways” but as surely as the rains fall, and the bludgeons of forced conviction strike you, you will come around!

Posted: **Tue Feb 11, 2025 2:29 pm**

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 2:00 pm The Hyperborean Apollo waxes nostalgeo-philosophic ….
_________________

I HAVE AT TIMES asked myself: “Who are all these people? And why do they participate in this forum and — generally speaking — bicker more than converse?”

The psychological always impinges, I think. We are in a desperate age where larger, defining meta-narratives are collapsing and we, individuals, are bereft of “ground” on which to stand. Angst-ridden people, though, still need to interact, even if it is dysfunctional and not often satisfying. But I will leave that aside.

I have already and at length shared with you my present perspectives — in post after post after post. I do this (as I plainly state) for my own purposes. And I am conscious of my purposes on an intellectual plane while also aware of the unconscious (or semi-conscious) factors that motivate my own behavior. I have at times thought that through argument (confrontation, disagreement) we seek to keep ourselves alive. And that term “alive” applies in so many different areas.

And here is a key to help understand “what I am doing here”: I live in a largely rural area of Colombia and no one of the friends I have here has any interest in philosophy, theology, contemporary events, sociology, the ins and outs of The Culture Wars, nor the goings-on in America.

That said — and this is sort of a pathetic confession — this forum is my “intellectual world”.

Oh God, why hasten thou forsaken me!

Now, within this …

And let’s talk about your fixation on what is "lost" if determinism is widely accepted. You frame it as though recognizing reality is a threat rather than an opportunity. What exactly do you think collapses if people stop believing in an unscientific notion of free will? Are you afraid that concepts like responsibility, justice, and morality will crumble? If so, then let’s discuss that. Let's talk about what personal moral responsibility means given determinism. Let's examine what meritocracy, punishment, salvation, and damnation mean in a deterministic world. If your concern is about the social implications of determinism, then make that argument explicitly instead of dancing around it with appeals to tradition and intellectual history.
… there are many topics that are quite interesting. But the problem — your problem — is that you seek to Battle Windmills in your Mega-War against those who believe things that you cannot, such that you are not a very pleasant conversationalist. You lack a certain literacy …

Look at your first posts in this thread and — perhaps — you will see what I mean.

So far, I have explained where I stand in relation to this PROBLEM that consumes you. I certainly am not going to repeat it all over again. Look back over the first 20 pages. It is all there!
________________

Now, onto important business! I am beginning to market my own line of pharmaceuticals and one in particular called Resolution®.

(Gary please take note!)

Take just one and all doubt, all internal conflict, disperses! (The price-point is steep: $6,999.00 but the results are guaranteed!

“My ways are not your ways” but as surely as the rains fall, and the bludgeons of forced conviction strike you, you will come around!

Ah, Alexis, the master of grand diversions and theatrical exits. When backed into a corner, when pressed to defend his assertions with anything resembling a concrete argument, what does he do? He waxes poetic about the existential plight of online discourse, peppers in some self-deprecating humor, and then conveniently waves off the central question as if it’s all just a bit too tedious to revisit. Classic.

But let’s get back to the issue at hand, the one you keep sidestepping. You’ve spent an inordinate amount of time insinuating that my position on determinism serves some nefarious social or political agenda, yet when directly invited to unpack this supposed agenda, to engage in a substantive discussion about responsibility, justice, and morality under determinism, you retreat into vague complaints about my "mega-war" against free will believers.

No, Alexis. This isn’t about me. It’s about the argument. It’s about whether you can engage with the implications of determinism without resorting to misdirection and hand-waving.

You claim you've already explained where you stand—over twenty pages, no less! But here's the thing: quantity does not equal coherence. You still haven't addressed the fundamental contradiction at the heart of your position. You don't reject determinism outright, yet you refuse to accept its implications. You acknowledge that we exist within causal frameworks, yet you cling to some nebulous notion of agency without ever defining how it escapes causal determination.

And now, when given the opportunity to actually discuss the real-world consequences of determinism—how it affects our understanding of morality, justice, and personal responsibility—you feign exhaustion and point me to pages of past commentary instead of actually answering. That’s not discourse. That’s evasion.

So I’ll ask you one more time, and let’s see if you can engage without disappearing into rhetorical abstraction:

1. Given determinism, what does personal moral responsibility mean?
2. What does meritocracy mean if our actions are causally determined?
3. What do salvation and damnation mean if people do not have free will?

These are the topics you implied were at stake when you spoke about the dangers of determinism. So let’s discuss them. Take your pick. We can cover them all.

But if you can’t engage, if you find yourself reaching once again for theatrical diversions and tongue-in-cheek exits, then at least be honest about what’s really happening here. You don’t have an argument. You just have discomfort with the conclusions.

Philosophy Now Forum

Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?