typodupeerror

## Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1)268

I have run out of time for this. You may consider this a victory as you will, but I do not agree that you have any clue what you are talking about. You are just a bit too smug to be genuine, so I will say well trolled. I am out of town, so by the time this thread is locked, I might see your reply. Do what you will with your last word.

## Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1)268

Nope. Not even close. Go do a tiny bit of reading. You'll quickly discover that compatibilism is not what you think it is! You'd think you'd have looked something up after I ridiculed your post, so as not to look so damn foolish.

Nope, looks right to me. Yes, it is more complicated, and there are variations, but I would argue that that falls under compatabilism. You have brought up both determinism and free will, and supposed that your reasoning from determinism supports free will. Unless I misunderstand you? Most of the books I have read on the subject seem to agree that this is a view that determinism and free will are compatible.

No, it does not, as I (briefly) explained to you already. But I'll play. Go ahead, let's hear your explanation. How is it that some supernatural thing can have free will? Why does that justification not apply to some natural thing?

A would natural thing is subject to some extent to determinism - if even on a statistical level. I am going to use "non-natural" rather than supernatural, as the second term is a bit loaded. Suppose, however that an "non-natural" thing does not inhabit the same rules or even perhaps logic as the natural thing. The reason to bring up the non-natural is that it can perhaps have some independence from it's circumstance(natural or unnatural). If we are to suppose that only the natural exists, then we could extrapolate that all that occurs is a result of what came before. In other words, the will is not "free" to do other than what it must by either statistical probability or perhaps linear causation. The entire reason to suppose the non-natural is to provide a mechanism by which some independence of choice can exist. If it were contained within the natural, this could not be so.

The assumption is, that the natural and non-natural are not alike, otherwise we may as well, as you argue, just use "natural". The other assumption is, of course, that there can be no independence from circumstance in the natural (without being random). That seems a reasonable assumption based on observation, but it still is one.

No, no. This has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement. This is all based on what you've written. The compatibilist bit above makes it pretty clear you don't know much about the subject. It's broad and complicated, so it's not an indictment of your ability, just that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

As I see it, there are two broad categories, and, yes you can be an incompatibilist and reject or accept free will. I don't see the deficiency in my understanding here. Yes, this is a generalization, and yes, I am well aware that there are sub-categories here, but I have never read of any further categories? Do you have a reference I could look at?

Sometimes, but not always. In your case, you didn't offer anything to deconstruct, just a lot of ridiculous assertions. Like I mentioned earlier, I've see this before, and it's not really worth the effort as most people either don't care or have the necessary background to dig in to the subject. It's not exactly an easy topic for a layperson tackle. Where the hell do you start? Is it even possible with a few quick exchanges? It's simpler just to point in a direction and say, 'look over there' or pose a question that makes them consider their position more fully. With any luck, they'll figure it out on their own.

It is possible to be polite about these things, yes, this is slashdot, and I must be new around here. It is also possible to actually do some pointing. I don't claim to be infallible here either, but while you say you have nothing to address with my "ridiculous" assertions, calling them "ridiculous" does not give me anything to address either.

## Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1)268

They reject free will on the basis that a plausible deterministic account for it cannot be given!

This is known as compatiblism. I.e. free will and determinism can be compatible. I am sure your education as taught you this? And the tension in this view?

Is "your" reasoning any different?

My reasoning is free will is either compatible with determinism or it isn't. Choose from column A or B.

"what is the essential difference between your supernatural agent and your meat robot agent?" (Note that you haven't considered this before now.)

Different rules may apply in a different system that may not be comprehensible to us. Seems reasonable to me. Yeah, it is a bit of an appeal to mystery, and this is one possible solution(not necessarily the solution). I have considered this before, possibly even more than you.

Why do you allow free will for one and not for the other?

I don't necessarily, but I do assert that if free will is libertarian, a robot is unlikely to have it.

Why bring that in to the discussion at all?

It provides a mechanism by which free will can exist. In a libertarian sense.

Your other questions boil down to "Isn't this silly?" I can find no others in your previous post. Admittedly I did stop looking.

Your assumptions that those who disagree with you are uneducated, or don't understand anything are, to be blunt a little stupid. Your arrogance is astounding. Rather than engage in debate, you immediately default to ridicule. I don't doubt your education, but I do doubt your reasoning capability. Sure you may be jaded by the large masses of armchair philosophers who have never considered these footnotes or thought about sentience or any of these other concepts, but don't be an asshole about it. At very least, refer people to a good textbook on the concepts, so you don't have to explain yourself. If you are that lazy, it will make you look a bit better.

Are these insights new or unique to me? No. never claimed they were. Never claimed to have solved all mysteries and reasoned every path, but that does not mean I have not read widely, or that I have not been educated in some of these things.

## Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1)268

Secondly, how is your appeal to mystery different from my appeal to supernatural? I just put words to what you dance around. How is it different from a system that is subject to investigation? Well, since you appeal to mystery, why can't I?

Never the less, you haven't actually said anything again. You seem more interested in saying why you can't say anything than in demonstrating your point. "You wouldn't understand " is the cry of all emo kids.

poor misunderstood slashdotter. It is far easier to attack a person then to address their point. See I can do condescension too!
By the way, I don't suggest you have no free will. On the contrary, I hold you morally responsible for your atrocious post.

## Comment Re: Oh God (Score 1)268

Well, you could ridicule me or provide a contrary argument. One of these paths supports your point. The other does not. Perhaps the issue is you do not understand libertarian free will? What differentiates your understanding from compatabilist or just randomness? Basically, all you have done is use words like "silly" and "absurd." kind of makes you look like a troll.

## Comment Re:Oh God (Score 1)268

You are correct. Libertarian free will would requires that there is a component of a person that is not measurable by scientific inquiry, and yet not random internally. In this libertarian free will requires belief in some form of "supernatural". If you reject the possibility of the supernatural, you must either embrace compatibilist free will or conclude that the idea of free will is nonsensical from your point of view.

## Comment Re:Oh God (Score 1)268

Interestingly, three sects around the time of Jesus debated this topic - the Essenes (Determinism), the Pharisees(somewhere in the middle) and the Sadducees(free will). The evidence was debated even within the ancient context. Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharasaical thought deeply influenced early Christianity, until people removed from that context (Augustine, Calvin,etc) brought in the philosophy of determinism.

## Comment Re:Oh God (Score 1)268

"Hands-off" is difficult to defend. Remember, the ancient Jews considered God to be involved in every aspect of creation. There was no "natural" and "supernatural" in the thought. This does no remove the possibility of free will, but will can only be free in so far as it is permitted by God. When we try to impose modern philosophy on the ancient text, the meaning will distort.

## Comment Re:Oh God (Score 1)268

This is a view called open theism and it is gaining traction in the church. It's major opponent is Molinism. A lot of people have problems with the orthodoxy of open theism, and consider it at very least shaky ground. Most fundamentalists have no idea that this conversation is going on, but then I guess they have no idea about much beyond what is in front of them anyway.

"It doesn't much signify whom one marries for one is sure to find out next morning it was someone else." -- Rogers

Working...