compatibilism

[Age]

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.

Which PROVES, IRREFUTABLY, that 'they' were not 'cut out for' a philosophy forum, yet.

AGAIN, if absolutely any one does not like to be critiqued, challenged, nor questioned over what they want to say and claim here, then 'they' are not yet ready for a philosophy forum nor for philosophical discussions.

Obviously, 'these ones' just want to express their 'current' view/s or belief/s, and just want to 'try to' argue and fight for their 'currently' held onto position. Which, I will suggest, they go to a 'debating forum' for such things. Philosophy, and philosophical discussions, are a much DIFFERENT thing. Well to me anyway.

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

LOL

If ABSOLUTELY ANY one 'looks back over' MY WORDS, then most of them are just questioning you people over what you say and claim.

That you people cannot handle this, and are not yet of just clarifying, nor standing behind and supporting your positions, does not mean that I am impossible to have a conversation with. What this means is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you people to back up and support your assumptions and/or beliefs.

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,

LOL
LOL
LOL

Some of these people, back when this was written, were so UTTERLY USELESS that they could not even just 'read' just because some words were written in capital letters.

but unfortunately the underlying thoughts and communication patterns are still just goddamn insufferable.

LOL

Some people, like 'this one', found what were just 'thoughts', within another body, LAUGHINGLY 'insufferable'. This was how Truly WEAK some of 'these people' REALLY WERE.

People don't want to talk to you.

LOL people like this one would, continually, 'talk to me' to tell me that people do, like "themselves", do not want to 'talk to me'.

And, the most funny part of this is that they could NOT see the hypocrisy, and irony, in what they were doing here.

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

STOP saying and claiming False and Wrong things, then I will leave you human beings here, alone.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

When you actually just say what you think and why you think it, you're much more tolerable. If only you did this all the time, instead of beating around the bush and dragging conversations into the most retarded tangents. I actually like this post of yours, good job Age.

[Atla]

'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.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

[Age]

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you, 'now', want to talk about COURAGE, then SHOW some by providing an actual assumption, which you assume and claim that I have made here. And, feel free to 'look through' this WHOLE FORUM if you like.

Also, 'LOOK AT' how these ones are, ONCE AGAIN, 'trying' their hardest to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the 'things' that I have been pointing out about what they have been saying and claiming here. The 'things' that they will NOT acknowledge nor clarify and stand behind, but will IGNORE, and TRY TO MOVE AWAY FROM, INSTEAD.

Saying and/or claiming some thing like, 'This one does not have the COURAGE to notice its own [whatever]' is about one of the most IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS ACCUSATIONS that could be made. It is also just ANOTHER ATTEMPT to FOOL and DECEIVE of some thing that may not even actually be there.

And, just about 'on cue', "atla" fell STRAIGHT INTO, and FOR, 'the deception'.

[Atla]

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If you, 'now', want to talk about COURAGE, then SHOW some by providing an actual assumption, which you assume and claim that I have made here. And, feel free to 'look through' this WHOLE FORUM if you like.

Also, 'LOOK AT' how these ones are, ONCE AGAIN, 'trying' their hardest to DEFLECT AWAY FROM the 'things' that I have been pointing out about what they have been saying and claiming here. The 'things' that they will NOT acknowledge nor clarify and stand behind, but will IGNORE, and TRY TO MOVE AWAY FROM, INSTEAD.

Saying and/or claiming some thing like, 'This one does not have the COURAGE to notice its own [whatever]' is about one of the most IDIOTIC and RIDICULOUS ACCUSATIONS that could be made. It is also just ANOTHER ATTEMPT to FOOL and DECEIVE of some thing that may not even actually be there.

And, just about 'on cue', "atla" fell STRAIGHT INTO, and FOR, 'the deception'.

Keep this up and you're going back on antipsychotics soon.

[Age]

'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.

Thanks for an acknowledgement here "phyllo".

I found that 'looking at', only, what 'is' Real and True, only, or at least 'looking at', only, what 'could be' Real and True, only, far more productive, and just far more 'reasonable and sensible'.

And, for those would like to have a discussion about 'this definition', to 'find out' and 'see' where it could take 'us', then let 'us' proceed.

[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.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

[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.

When you actually just say what you think and why you think it, you're much more tolerable.

Fair enough.

If only you did this all the time, instead of beating around the bush and dragging conversations into the most retarded tangents.

I have done 'that' for a very specific reason. Which 'the reason why' I did will become much clearer, later on.

I actually like this post of yours, good job Age.

I have said, more or less, the exact same things before. But, some, or maybe a lot of what I say here gets missed.

Also, when I say I am here to learn how to communicate better, I really mean this. i will 'get there', but it was never going to be a quick process.

I also wrote that because I was starting to feel somewhat annoyed waiting for some one/any one to just ask me what do I mean by the words that I use here.

[Atla]

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.

Redefining key philosophical concepts to suit your needs is called sophistry.

What is sacred about definitions?

If a definition isn't useful, then changing it is perfectly reasonable.

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

[Flannel Jesus]

But, some, or maybe a lot of what I say here gets missed.

That's down to you. People miss your posts because you make it too much effort to interact. You spend so many words saying things like "But I have already, in the days when this was written, given the path to do this thing which is the one and only right way and the people, in the days when this was written, didn't listen". That's too many fucking words, and not a single one of them is useful. Instead of all of that, just say the thing. Say it again. Repeat yourself. Don't say "I already have given the path" in a hundred words, just write the path again. People aren't going to trawl through every post of yours to read the thing you said a week ago. Make it easy for people to know what you mean.

Like you did in that post i liked.

[phyllo]

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

So then one moves on to thinking about what sort of will could/does exist.

[Flannel Jesus]

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens. It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

Age, take note of how I posted my thoughts above. I didn't say anything about how people back in the days didn't do such-and-such, I just wrote what I think. More of that please Age.

[Atla]

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

So then one moves on to thinking about what sort of will could/does exist.

?! How does it show it?

[Iwannaplato]

Free will.

Could you define the will part of that phrase? Free will leads to the speciic choice you make....what does that mean?

It doesn't lead to a specific choice, it leads to any specific choice you want.

Exactly, but then 'want' is connected to desire, goals and motivation and what one knows.

If I ask what leads to the choice, your answer 'free will' doesn't make sense.

Free will is part of the context, but it doesn't lead to any particular choice, which was why I asked for a specfic choice from you earlier. You can break all physical laws, you in the moment you receive my message are asked what will you do next. Any specific answer will have to do with wants, even the perverse want to do what you don't want to do, which is still a want. If one is not hindered in any way at all by the rules of the universe, and you choose based, then, on what you want, then wants determine choices.

A: What leads you to choose out of all the possible actions - free from all physical law restraints - one action?
B: Free will.
Actually, no. It's not free will that leads to the specific choice.

[phyllo]

But it's useful, you claim to know that there's no free will but you don't.

FJ's rewind example clearly shows that free-will defined as "the ability to act differently" doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say it necessarily "doesn't exist", but that if it did exist, it wouldn't be because of *you* or your will.

It's totally possible we live in a universe where we rewind to the exact same state, press play again and something different happens. It's just not, in my view, justifiable to call that 'free will' or make that the basis for free will.

I get that if a different choice was made, then it would be randomness and not an expression of one's will. And it wouldn't be any sort of freedom, since in effect one would be the 'victim' of randomness.