RE: Consciousness Trilemma
May 25, 2017 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 25, 2017 at 4:32 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
My criticism is of his retarded "approach" of merely redefining shit.
No his reasons for being a compatabilist are utilitarian. He has literally done a whole talk admitting that to him free will is a social construct like money.
All he does is notices he can't make sense of something and then instead of addressing it he makes sense of something else entirely and then relabels that with the same word as the first thing he was supposed to be addressing... and he makes a career out of it by writing books with verbose obfuscations and many misdirections and digressions... because many people are intellectually inferior enough to fall for it.
My criticism is the same as the critics I quoted from Wikipedia in my previous post in this thread. But you're not going to understand this stuff--like you didn't understand the matter of modal logic being entirely relevant to logic in alternative universes--as basic as it is, I'm afraid, and my disappointment has worn off now and I just can't be bothered explaining things to you anymore. It's a pity that you're so thick that you think I might be thick and you're not even capable of understanding that outright tautologies are not only true in all possible universes but you also fucking think that science can trump them when we're talking about the non-illusory reality of our own subjectivity.
Bah, you're a waste of my time, I'm logging out of AF for the day so I don't waste my compulsive need to correct bad logic on someone as beyond correction as yourself.
No his reasons for being a compatabilist are utilitarian. He has literally done a whole talk admitting that to him free will is a social construct like money.
All he does is notices he can't make sense of something and then instead of addressing it he makes sense of something else entirely and then relabels that with the same word as the first thing he was supposed to be addressing... and he makes a career out of it by writing books with verbose obfuscations and many misdirections and digressions... because many people are intellectually inferior enough to fall for it.
My criticism is the same as the critics I quoted from Wikipedia in my previous post in this thread. But you're not going to understand this stuff--like you didn't understand the matter of modal logic being entirely relevant to logic in alternative universes--as basic as it is, I'm afraid, and my disappointment has worn off now and I just can't be bothered explaining things to you anymore. It's a pity that you're so thick that you think I might be thick and you're not even capable of understanding that outright tautologies are not only true in all possible universes but you also fucking think that science can trump them when we're talking about the non-illusory reality of our own subjectivity.
Bah, you're a waste of my time, I'm logging out of AF for the day so I don't waste my compulsive need to correct bad logic on someone as beyond correction as yourself.
