Hard Determinism - Page 11 - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

Hard Determinism

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 11 of 13

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Page 11 of 13

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

10-25-2009 , 10:30 PM

#251

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

Sorry, "observable connection to reality."

That still doesn't answer anything.

What counts as an "observable connection to reality"?

We've already established that the metaphysical question of free will isn't amenable to empirical observation!

Quote

$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker

Join the action now

Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces

10-25-2009 , 10:37 PM

#252

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

And you'd be wrong...because you don't understand the distinction that is already present in use.

I never mentioned algorithms, and don't see why you introduced that term.

Quote:

Yeah, a very poor one which no one agrees with you on (I mean in the field of inquiry...but even no one here seems likely to agree either).

I'm basically parroting Dennett. Furthermore, if you just attend to the types of experiences that actually create our concept of 'free will', you'll see my analysis can't be far wrong.

Quote:

You should since it goes to demonstrate what I mean by free will. You asked what I meant, and yet you don't care for part of the answer? You're worse than a table, sir.

Where did I ask what you meant? Pretty sure I didn't.

Quote:

Again, you should for the previous reason. Why bother attempting to engage in debate w/ me if you don't care what others think/mean?

I posted an analysis of the concept 'free will.' You commented on it, and I replied.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:38 PM

#253

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,316

Sub, sorry to say, but you're a good example of what happens when you're arguing philosophy without knowledge and understanding of it.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:42 PM

#254

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

In reality, there is a concept 'free will'. This concept gets its meaning through some predictable class of processes and experiences. We may observe these, and analyze the essential themes.

Which is what we should do, instead of inventing disconnected "definitions."

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:44 PM

#255

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

Sub, sorry to say, but you're a good example of what happens when you're arguing philosophy without knowledge and understanding of it.

You don't even know what philosophy is. (Feel free to prove me wrong. Viz.---define the method and goals of philosophical practice.)

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:44 PM

#256

harddeterminism

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,455

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

You don't even know what philosophy is. (Feel free to prove me wrong. Viz.---define the method and goals of philosophical practice.)

derail much?

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:48 PM

#257

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,316

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

You don't even know what philosophy is.

Since you're bringing your ego into this, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. You're right, I know nothing.

Carry on.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:50 PM

#258

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by harddeterminism

derail much?

I'm just curious if Hardball47 can even clarify what he means by an attempted insult.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:51 PM

#259

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

Since you're bringing your ego into this, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest. You're right, I know nothing.

Carry on.

So, just to make it explicit: you don't even understand your own attempt to insult me. Well done, sir. Well done.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:52 PM

#260

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

I never mentioned algorithms, and don't see why you introduced that term.

Sigh, because algorithms are in contrast to heuristics. Your use of heuristics does not allow for the distinction. Your use is flat out incorrect.

Quote:

I'm basically parroting Dennett. Furthermore, if you just attend to the types of experiences that actually create our concept of 'free will', you'll see my analysis can't be far wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFo5Ky8YE8c

You aren't even coming CLOSE to what Dennett argues. I can just imagine the scene from Annie Hall where Dennett walks up and says "You know nothing of my work."

Quote:

Where did I ask what you meant? Pretty sure I didn't.

From Post 222:

Quote:

This is what 'free will' means. If you wish to refer to something other than these heuristics, you need to clarify what; and probably choose different words, to avoid confusion.

From post 228:

Quote:

If you wish to discuss something else (a concept not indicated in the ordinary usage of 'free will'), by all means do so. But please first clarify what this other concept might be.

From post 238:

Quote:

You've made vague references to some private (and apparently empty) concept that you have; but certainly not clarified anything I can see.

Do you even read or think about what you're writing?!

Quote:

I posted an analysis of the concept 'free will.' You commented on it, and I replied.

No, you haven't really replied because you're not engaging the arguments against your absurd "analysis"

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:53 PM

#261

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

So, just to make it explicit: you don't even understand your own attempt to insult me. Well done, sir. Well done.

You got leveled n00b. Nihan, sir.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 10:57 PM

#262

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,316

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

So, just to make it explicit: you don't even understand your own attempt to insult me. Well done sir.

It wasn't an insult, but apparently you took insult to it. I was pointing out the common misconception that anybody can argue philosophy, and that your misunderstanding of basic concepts like free will was to illustrate that.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:10 PM

#263

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

Sigh, because algorithms are in contrast to heuristics. Your use of heuristics does not allow for the distinction. Your use is flat out incorrect.

Um...I'm not trying to set up a distinction with algorithms! I'm referring to the sum of neurological processes that set subconscious expectations for our behavior. (I.e. predict it.)

Quote:

You aren't even coming CLOSE to what Dennett argues. I can just imagine the scene from Annie Hall where Dennett walks up and says "You know nothing of my work."

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of The Intentional Stance on hand, nor Freedom Evolves, but hopefully I will have the time next weekend to find you some quotes.

Even if I don't have it, I should really make it...because I am parroting Dennett and don't know why you think otherwise. Yes, things look different this compressed, but the contours of the analysis are recognizable I'm sure.

And I was asking, rhetorically, for an observable connection to reality. Which you are not going to attempt to provide.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:10 PM

#264

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardball47

Since you don't know what philosophy is, you probably shouldn't attempt to point out related misconceptions. Just a thought.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:15 PM

#265

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

You got leveled n00b. Nihan, sir.

So you're not familiar with Hardball47. He makes posts like this. There's a real possibility that he doesn't even know what he means by philosophy. Thus far, the facts seem to favor it.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:29 PM

#266

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

Um...I'm not trying to set up a distinction with algorithms! I'm referring to the sum of neurological processes that set subconscious expectations for our behavior. (I.e. predict it.)

I know you're not. What you're doing is destroying the distinction by using a wildly non-standard use of "heuristic" which is absurd.

Quote:

See, the thing is that I have each of those books as well as Elbow Room sitting on my shelf behind me. It also so happens that a friend in my department works explicitly on Dennett. Hell, I even named my dog Dennett

So, I probably know more about his positions than you.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:29 PM

#267

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

So you're not familiar with Hardball47. He makes posts like this. There's a real possibility that he doesn't even know what he means by philosophy. Thus far, the facts seem to favor it.

See "genetic fallacy"

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:32 PM

#268

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

I know you're not. What you're doing is destroying the distinction by using a wildly non-standard use of "heuristic" which is absurd.

See, the thing is that I have each of those books as well as Elbow Room sitting on my shelf behind me. It also so happens that a friend in my department works explicitly on Dennett. Hell, I even named my dog Dennett

So, I probably know more about his positions than you.

Then, by all means, please summarize his analysis of the concept 'free will'! You don't need to cite chapter and verse, just give me three or four sentences framing the concept within his guiding principles.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:34 PM

#269

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

See "genetic fallacy"

No, you don't get it. He actually believes that a first century Jewish mystic Jesus of Nazareth is going to resurrect you, then torture you. (This mystic caused the Big Bang, btw.)

Possession of this sort of belief is relevant to everything about a person.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:48 PM

#270

harddeterminism

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,455

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

lol agreed, but this doesn't really seem like the place to lambaste him for that...save it for RGT

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:49 PM

#271

harddeterminism

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,455

Dennett is a goofball (an incredibly intelligent one), anyone who finds Richard Dawkins in their camp should be seriously concerned with their position in the academic world.

Quote

10-25-2009 , 11:57 PM

#272

durkadurka33

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 8,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

I definitely do get it...but you clearly don't know what the genetic fallacy is, then. I don't care what his metaphysical beliefs about the afterlife are. If you think that you can criticize him for that as harshly as you appear to want to, then you really have no business in philosophy. Whether or not he's 100% wrong in 999/1000 topics and arguments, it has no bearing on whether he's incorrect here. That's the genetic fallacy, sir. Also, don't change the subject. Your little ad hominem will not save you.

Quote

10-26-2009 , 12:01 AM

#273

Subfallen

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by harddeterminism

Dennett is a goofball (an incredibly intelligent one), anyone who finds Richard Dawkins in their camp should be seriously concerned with their position in the academic world.

Well, unless your livelihood depends on it, I don't think you should be concerned about the opinion of academia. (Let's be honest, I envy people like durkadurka33 who have found a way to get paid for thinking about random abstractions. But I certainly don't confuse that with having useful insights into reality.)

Anyways, good night.

Edit - Hopefully durkadurka33 will blow me away with his exposition of Dennett, and I'll have to come back strong next weekend...but...[edit again]no, I don't really need to post THAT. Suffice to say my location holds right now.

Quote

10-26-2009 , 12:10 AM

#274

harddeterminism

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,455

Quote:

Originally Posted by durkadurka33

QFT

maybe take some of your own medicine

let's all play nice boys

Quote

10-26-2009 , 12:13 AM

#275

Hardball47

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,316

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subfallen

So you're not familiar with Hardball47. He makes posts like this. There's a real possibility that he doesn't even know what he means by philosophy. Thus far, the facts seem to favor it.

If you're insinuating that holding certain religious beliefs discredits any understanding or education in philosophy, then you're mistaken even further.

Philosophical =/= Irreligious.

Enough with the red herrings, please.