For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I explained to you that "determinism" refers to the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pmAnd what was so valuable about your earlier posts?
You skipped the experiment. So you don't know. Go try it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:46 pmLook at the mentally ill person tormented by thoughts and say the thoughts don't exist because they do.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:19 pmYes, well...nail your hand to the floor, then pretend you haven't and just walk away, and see how it works for you. Then you'll understand the difference between reality and imagination, I guarantee you.
You are failing to read into the distinguishment I already made. The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:23 pmYou skipped the experiment. So you don't know. Go try it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:46 pmLook at the mentally ill person tormented by thoughts and say the thoughts don't exist because they do.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:19 pm
Yes, well...nail your hand to the floor, then pretend you haven't and just walk away, and see how it works for you. Then you'll understand the difference between reality and imagination, I guarantee you.
And if only part of reality is deterministic then that part is still deterministic within the totality of that context. Determinism is an extreme viewpoint just like pure free will is an extreme.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:21 pmI explained to you that "determinism" refers to the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.
Yet the cause and effect chain which results from a choice is deterministic....A leads to B which leads to C.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:02 pmThen we're not talking about determinism.
Determinism is the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.
If that's not the view, we're not talking about determinism.
There's no such thing as a "distinguishment."' And "each other" is two words, not one.
The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.
Schematics are representations of things, not the thing-itself. That's how a schematic relates to a building.Thoughts form reality the same way a set of schematics form a building. The schematics are real. The building is real.
Personally I don't think you understand your own position and are threatened that someone doubts it.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:40 pmThere's no such thing as a "distinguishment."' And "each other" is two words, not one.
So we can fix two things you don't understand right there.
The action is real as an action. The thought is real as a thought.
I understand what you think you're trying to say. But it's not correct, and shows a failure of logic called "equivocation."
To be "real as only a thought" is not to be actually real.
Schematics are representations of things, not the thing-itself. That's how a schematic relates to a building.Thoughts form reality the same way a set of schematics form a building. The schematics are real. The building is real.
So now you've got three categories of "existing": 1. Things only present iin imagination, 2. Things only representing other things, and 3. Things that actually exist as themselves. None of the three "exists" in the same way.
But I think you can't understand that, and I just can't make the essential point any simpler than Terrapin Station already has, so you're on your own now.
You're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?
You ignoring the posts above only to focus on that single quote shows your inability to respond, your lack of a response further shows an inability to understand the above.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:11 amYou're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?
I'm in no position to say. So you choose. But again, I have no interest in drilling holes in water.
Not bothering anymore.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:18 amImmanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:11 amYou're wrong, actually. I completely understand what you don't understand. But I can't make you understand it. Why that is, you can decide: is it because you're refusing to think, or incapable of thinking?
I'm in no position to say. So you choose. But again, I have no interest in drilling holes in water.
Just like it is impossible to make anything of somebody who or who does not even know what they are talking about or claiming and so they can not or will not answer clarifying questions posed to them, correct?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:42 pmBecause it's impossible to make anything of somebody who doesn't even know (or is not willing to recognize) the difference between real and imaginary.
If one can not or will not answer clarifying questions, then obviously intelligent progress can NOT proceed either.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:42 pm Rather like it's impossible to make headway with a person who only responds with questions, and never allows for intelligent progress.
So, when you can not or will not answer clarifying questions, then you just suggest the other be out, correct?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:42 pm Same deal.
Unless you like the experience of trying to drill a hole in water, you're better to be "out."
This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of where you BELIEVE that you KNOW what the One and ONLY definition is for words, and if anyone thinks or views things differently, then they are just WRONG.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:41 pm "Determinism" is the view that all phenomena are determined.
"Freedom" (and "free will" as a subset of it) is the view that there are at least some phenomena that are not determined.
Those two positions are mutually exclusive. If you think that all phenomena are determined, then it can't be the case that some phenomena are free.
If you think that at least some phenomena are free, then you can't think that all phenomena are determined.
LOL If that is the view 'you', human beings, have for the word 'determinism', then no wonder 'you' have made NO progress at all in the last few thousand years, in this discussion.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:02 pmThen we're not talking about determinism.
Determinism is the view that ALL phenomena are deterministic.
If that's not the view, we're not talking about determinism.
Has ANY one here asked me to define 'proof'?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:02 pmYou want proof but you do not define proof thus leading your version of proof to be open ended subjective interpretation.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:20 amEVERY 'action' required a previous action.
To me, however, an act of 'free will' does NOT "require" ANY thing. However, from EVERY act of 'free will' a further action, naturally, occurs, anyway.
Your words here, AGAIN, are NOT helping 'me', at all, understand 'you' better. For example, from the very first word of your sentence I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what you are referring to NOT meaning.
Was just using thee ACTUAL word that the word "it" here was referring instead of using the 'it' word REALLY to hard to do?
Or, did you NOT use 'that word' for some other reason?
If yes, then what was that reason, EXACTLY?
IF 'you' EVER get around to EXPLAINING what 'free will' is, to 'you', then 'we' can START LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'this'.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:25 pm 3. If free will came through evolution a contradiction entails given both free will and evolution are agents of change thus necessitating "change" as a phenomenon being divided. In the act of free will a change occurs in a form with this new form being a variation of the prior form. This variation is an evolution of forms. Evolution of being, where being exists in contrast to nothing, is pure being freely coming from nothing. This freedom of being from nothing is the will of being thus necessitating being occuring through free will.
Until then what 'you' are talking about and/or referring to here, ONLY 'you' KNOW.
LOL There is NO dispute that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. So, 'you' do NOT need to keep 'trying to' argue for this conclusion.
What 'you' NEED to do, from my perspective, is just SHOW and PROVE how 'you' arrived at that conclusion, in a logically reasoned way. So far, 'you' have NOT YET.
Also, what I was putting forward, through a clarifying question, was; HAS 'free will' ALWAYS coexisted with 'determinism', or, did 'free' will' come to exist, somewhere along the evolutionary line of 'things'?
I suggest STOP 'trying to' argue that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. To me, I think this is irrefutable anyway. Instead I suggest you START LOOKING AT the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I am putting forward, to you, and then just Honestly responding to them, ONLY. That way 'you' will then ACTUALLY find, and thus obtain, thee ACTUAL PROOF, which you are 'trying to' SHOW here.
LOL This statement is a COMPLETE DISTORTION as well as being OBVIOUSLY False, and so is just BEYOND A JOKE, especially considering what I have ACTUALLY been saying and CLEARLY POINTING OUT.
You have concluded some things, which may be ABSOLUTELY True, Right, and Correct. However, you are NOT YET able to explain how 'you' arrived at such a conclusion.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:02 pm 1. Free will is an action. Action builds upon action thus necessitating free will as part of a cause and effect chain.
2. "It" references all of being. Free will emerges as part of the totality of being as in looking at the totality of being free will is part of it strictly because we are discussing it. This discussion is part of the totality of being thus necessitating we are observing free will as a phenomenon.
3. Free will is change initiated through the "I".
4. The proof of free will existing is the fact we are observing it through a conversation. It cannot be an illusion as an illusion implies deception and deception requires a choice between truth and falsity.
The proof if determinism is the fact that one action precedes another, one action builds upon another.
The proof that they coexist is that if everything is determined then this conversation of free will, hence of the observation of free will, determines free will existing as a phenomenon. If free will exists a series of actions build upon the prior actions chosen, much in the same manner we chose to discuss free will and a series of thoughts (ie actions) build upon prior thoughts (actions).
5. Free will has always existed along determinism given the evolution of patterns necessitated an intelligence behind them given intelligence is pattern manipulation. Evolution is pattern variation thus is synonymous to determinism. This pattern variation necessitates a universal intelligence.