Philosophy Now Forum

Evaluation of fellow posters equals personal attack.

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:49 am The fact that all creatures are reactionary in nature is in direct opposition to the idea of free will. One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even a considered inaction is a reaction to the environment. The environment is cause to all reactionary organisms, just as their reactions cause to the outer world and its fellows.

You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

Since 'free will' is NOT 'an illusion', WHY ask a question about whether it is or not?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:58 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:49 am The fact that all creatures are reactionary in nature is in direct opposition to the idea of free will. One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even a considered inaction is a reaction to the environment. The environment is cause to all reactionary organisms, just as their reactions cause to the outer world and its fellows.

You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

Since 'free will' is NOT 'an illusion', WHY ask a question about whether it is or not?

Because the illusion is the basis of belief, similar to beliefs in the supernatural. Since free will is non-existent how could it be dealt with otherwise?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am Sculptor,

I was like them before. I think there are steps or levels or episodes in the intelectual evolution and some people just stays in the same level for a more long time that others.

And I recognize "Age" and "bahman" as if they were me years ago.

And, I recognize "chnops" as I used to be, years ago.

And, to provide AN EXAMPLE, which "chnops" will NOT do, is that I used to talk ABOUT "others", like "chnops" and "others" are doing here. Which is something that usually begins in little school, but which some people continue on with, all of their life.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am Is funny how "Age" talk LIKE this ALL the TIME.

Making emphasis like if we dont understand otherwise

Well, by the way you are responding, you OBVIOUSLY are NOT YET understanding.

And, AGAIN, the emphasis is NOT necessarily FOR 'you', posters, here. Are you, AT LEAST, able to understand this Fact?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am And "bahman", I read him like if he is 15 years old.

I really want to have a conversation where at least one of us learn something new, but I lose interest inmediatly.

Is like if in order to start a real conversation, I must to first kill their ego's. I dont have time for that.

Talk about one's 'ego' shining brightly here.

How about the ego under the label "chnops" is KILLED OFF, FIRST?

Maybe then 'you' will NOT, supposedly, lose interest SO QUICKLY.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am The funny part is that I am not a classic materialist, and I believe there is just one substance in the universe, and we are that, and we are eternals.

WHY is that funny, to you?

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am I know you dont believe that. But is funny that they believe something like that too, but in order to learn more they need to learn from your point of view more and try to understand their mistakes, even if the root of the knowledge can or not be right.

How about you BEGIN to START LEARNING "chnops".

You CLAIM to BELIEVE that there is just ONE substance in the WHOLE Universe. Now, if you want 'me' or "another" to LEARN what this ONE substance ALONE IS, then just INFORM us. Or, is this just too HARD and too COMPLEX for you to do.

In other words, if you want to CLAIM some thing is true, then BACK UP and SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

CHNOPS wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:43 am I dont want to debate with someone that write comments with a lot of ego, like if they know everything and there is nobody who can teach them something new.

What is it that you think or BELIEVE the I does NOT YET KNOW? And then tell I what that IS, EXACTLY. THEN, we can ALL SEE and thus LEARN something new, which "chnops" BELIEVES 'it' KNOWS thee Truth of.

AGAIN, talk about the 'ego' AT WORK here.

If 'you' have A CLAIM, then back 'it' up and support 'it'. Otherwise the ONLY 'thing' talking here IS 'the ego'.

Can 'you' REALLY NOT SEE that if one makes A CLAIM, without YET having thee ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth to PRESENT, then that 'one' is JUST 'the ego' AT PLAY, and AT WORK?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:58 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:21 pm
You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

Since 'free will' is NOT 'an illusion', WHY ask a question about whether it is or not?

Because the illusion is the basis of belief,

SO, according to this so-called "logic" of YOURS here, the BELIEF that there are words on a screen in front of a human being, is based on 'an illusion', correct?

If this is NOT correct, then what IS, EXACTLY?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:05 am similar to beliefs in the supernatural.

If the word 'supernatural' means or refers to some 'thing', which is above, beyond, or NOT a part of the 'natural', then OBVIOUSLY that is a BELIE in just AN ILLUSION.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:05 am Since free will is non-existent how could it be dealt with otherwise?

What does 'free will' even mean or refer to, to you?

AND, if you just write and say that what 'free will' means or refers to is ANOTHER 'thing' that does NOT even exist, then just as OBVIOUS, and OF COURSE, 'that definition' of 'free will' IS of a NON-EXISTENT 'thing'.

So, we AWAIT YOUR DEFINITION here.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:25 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:17 am Belinda.

It is a misuse of the term, but then the term is nonsense anyway. As far as reflection goes this is common to all creatures, it is a matter of degree rather than of kind.

So, if one USES the term 'free will' DIFFERENTLY than you do, then that USAGE is a MISUSE of the term, correct?

And, the way you USE the term 'free will' is the ONLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT way to USE 'that term', correct?

Oh, and be the way, besides THROUGH 'you', where else can one FIND the, maybe one and only, PROPER and ACCURATE way to USE 'terms'?

Specialist jargons spare us from a lot of time and confusion. I learned some philosophical jargon from better philosophers than I.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:27 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:25 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:17 am Belinda.

It is a misuse of the term, but then the term is nonsense anyway. As far as reflection goes this is common to all creatures, it is a matter of degree rather than of kind.

So, if one USES the term 'free will' DIFFERENTLY than you do, then that USAGE is a MISUSE of the term, correct?

And, the way you USE the term 'free will' is the ONLY TRUE, RIGHT, and CORRECT way to USE 'that term', correct?

Oh, and be the way, besides THROUGH 'you', where else can one FIND the, maybe one and only, PROPER and ACCURATE way to USE 'terms'?

Specialist jargons spare us from a lot of time and confusion. I learned some philosophical jargon from better philosophers than I.

What has this got to do with what I said and wrote.

It does NOT matter how much jargon is specialized or not if and when people have and use DIFFERENT definitions.

In other words until 'you', human beings, agree upon and accept a specific definition for the 'term', or 'specialized jargon', 'free will', then 'you' WILL continue on with your complete and utter waste of time so-called 'philosophical discussions' about whether it is the case of 'free will' OR 'determinism'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:34 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:21 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:49 am The fact that all creatures are reactionary in nature is in direct opposition to the idea of free will. One can choose among choices how one will react to one's environment but one cannot not react, for even a considered inaction is a reaction to the environment. The environment is cause to all reactionary organisms, just as their reactions cause to the outer world and its fellows.

You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

bahman,

The illusion is what is responsible for the belief in free will, but like the belief in the self it is a highly functional illusion and that may be the reason for belief in both cases.

If free will is an illusion then it cannot have a function.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:51 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:53 pm

In my experience Age does not read, or cannot read what he does not like to hear.
Bahman has zero ability to counter, but he does read what you write, but may fail to understand some points.

That is simply not true. I have difficulty understanding sometimes but I counter well when I understand you. Do you have the feeling of free will?

Define free will

The ability to choose between options unbiasedly.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:54 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 3:53 pm

Impossible.

It is possible. Any agent who has free will is an uncaused cause. You don't believe in free will so I cannot help you. I believe that you cannot see the link between free will and uncaused cause too.

So you are an uncaused cause??
how much more ridiculous can you get?

Yes, I am uncaused caused sine I am free to choose.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:23 pm Hoisting yourself up by your own boot straps are ya, bahman?

What are you talking about?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:53 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:34 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:21 pm
You didn't answer my question. I am not talking about free will but the feeling of having free will so again why should we have such a feeling if free will is an illusion?

bahman,

The illusion is what is responsible for the belief in free will, but like the belief in the self it is a highly functional illusion and that may be the reason for belief in both cases.

If free will is an illusion then it cannot have a function.

Depending on how one defines 'free will' this makes all the difference IF 'free will' exists or not.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:56 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:51 pm
That is simply not true. I have difficulty understanding sometimes but I counter well when I understand you. Do you have the feeling of free will?

Define free will

The ability to choose between options unbiasedly.

But this is an IMPOSSIBILITY.

But if you removed the last word, or the last three words, then that definition would FIT IN PERFECTLY with EVERY thing else.

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:58 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:28 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:54 pm
It is possible. Any agent who has free will is an uncaused cause. You don't believe in free will so I cannot help you. I believe that you cannot see the link between free will and uncaused cause too.

So you are an uncaused cause??
how much more ridiculous can you get?

Yes, I am uncaused caused sine I am free to choose.

Who and/or what does the 'I' word/letter here refer to EXACTLY?

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:59 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:23 pm Hoisting yourself up by your own boot straps are ya, bahman?

What are you talking about?

'you' CLAIMING that 'you' are an UNCAUSED cause.