Oh no not another free will thread.

[Catholic_Lady]

That gap between who a person is and who they think they are.

Off topic here, but you saying this reminds me of the whole "self esteem" movement that was big back when I was a teen. It was drilled into our brains so much that we should all have high self esteem. I never really bought that notion. I mean, If I do something good or right, I feel good about myself. If I do something shitty or if I fail at stuff, I feel shitty about myself. It's much better to have a realistic view of myself, rather than think I'm great just because I'm me and being me makes me awesome.

I know that's not the context you were speaking of, but it just reminded me of the whole self esteem thing.

[Edwardo Piet]

That gap between who a person is and who they think they are.  It might be the most interesting thing about people to me.  

I find you to be a fascinating case.  I think I got some more insight into that in this thread.  That's really what I find interesting.  Although, the implications of time travel on noncausal events is definitely an interesting hypothetical to bat around, but I don't think anyone here had much to add on that front.

I think this is a very passive-aggressive ad hominem.

He basically just trolled me like he did on my autism thread but I can't prove it and I don't care much I'm just a little disappointed about the derail.. so fuck it I won't even bother to report it myself.

---

I find you to be a fascinating case.  I think I got some more insight into that in this thread.  That's really what I find interesting.

So you weren't actually here for the topic you were here to psychoanalyse me. Noted.

---

That gap between who a person is and who they think they are.  It might be the most interesting thing about people to me.  

I find you to be a fascinating case.  I think I got some more insight into that in this thread.  That's really what I find interesting.  Although, the implications of time travel on noncausal events is definitely an interesting hypothetical to bat around, but I don't think anyone here had much to add on that front.

I think this is a very passive-aggressive ad hominem.

It seems fallacies is basically all he has when it comes to logic. Our whole disagreement was him just repeating the same red herring and then making a strawman of my response... and ending it all with a false analogy and ad hom.

Underwhelming and dire.

But he is also clearly very stupid as well.

---

That gap between who a person is and who they think they are.

Off topic here, but you saying this reminds me of the whole "self esteem" movement that was big back when I was a teen. It was drilled into our brains so much that we should all have high self esteem. I never really bought that notion. I mean, If I do something good or right, I feel good about myself. If I do something shitty or if I fail at stuff, I feel shitty about myself. It's much better to have a realistic view of myself, rather than think I'm great just because I'm me and being me makes me awesome.

I know that's not the context you were speaking of, but it just reminded me of the whole self esteem thing.

To me priding myself makes no sense! No free will!

[Catholic_Lady]

True, true...

[henryp]

I find you to be a fascinating case.  I think I got some more insight into that in this thread.  That's really what I find interesting.

So you weren't actually here for the topic you were here to psychoanalyse me. Noted.

I was definitely here for the topic, the conversation just stopped having value.  You said so yourself multiple times before posting more walls of text.  But I still like seeing how you respond to things.

A new thing I learned about you, is that you can't think in context.  It makes any discussions with you tough, because you do the 'quote every line, and respond to it like an individual thought, even though that removes it from it's context' thing.  You parse through things line by line, when you should be thinking of the whole post, the posts it's referencing, and previous posts in the discussion.  

But that's just shitty arguing on the internet 101.  Maybe has something to do with the autism?  You've said you have a really bad short term memory, so maybe just a thought at a time is your comfort zone.  That would fit with Mafia, where you didn't seem to be pulling information too deep into the past in a game we played.  You were always mostly focused on the content of the very last post.  I thought that was really odd at the time.  

It also explains why you think all analogies are bad.  Because you're unable to put them in the context of the discussion and see that there are relevant, on topic, similarities between two things.  Instead, you just view it as A = B.  And then you get all worked up because A doesn't equal B.  Which is never what anyone intends with an analogy. But if you can't try to view it through context, how are you going to figure that out.

It also fits with not being able to read people well.  What does this expression mean? when you're not considering the context is nearly impossible.  Also fits with why you can't tell if I'm trolling you or not.  

Another thing is how terrible you are with hypotheticals.  Part of it may be the context thing again.  You have to remember all ideas are being presented in the context of the hypothetical premises.  But you're also so rigid in your thinking, that maybe you just can't do it for whatever reason.  Because you're uncomfortable even pretending you are wrong about something?  Or maybe it's not a personality trait, and it's just a lack of ability.

[LadyForCamus]

So, are you going to respond to any of his points, or...?

Just the shitty armchair psychoanalyzing then?

[henryp]

So, are you going to respond to any of his points, or...?

Just the shitty armchair psychoanalyzing then?

Just shitty armchair psychoanalyzing.  Our discussion on the topic was over.  He's talked about it being a waste of time for a few posts now.  I also think it was a waste of his time.   Seems like moving on to something else is in order, no?

[Edwardo Piet]

I was definitely here for the topic, the conversation just stopped having value.  You said so yourself multiple times before posting more walls of text.  But I still like seeing how you respond to things.

Of course, that's because you made it lose value by making many constant logical errors and clogging the thread up with your own irrelevant digression as you keep telling me I'm saying something I keep explaining that I'm not saying.

A new thing I learned about you, is that you can't think in context.

Wrong.

You are the one who got the context wrong this game. The whole conversation was just about your irrelevant digression about science.

  It makes any discussions with you tough, because you do the 'quote every line, and respond to it like an individual thought, even though that removes it from it's context' thing.

Show me where I took ANYTHING you said out of context. You can't because it was you who was making all the mistakes. Any good debater on AF dissects people's mistakes point by point. I was dealing with your points.

You're just using my own autism as a cop-out to ignore the red herring and strawmen you have made.

You have made it abundantly clear throughout this thread that you simply can't do philosophy. You can't even make basic distinctions between truth and knowledge.

 You parse through things line by line, when you should be thinking of the whole post, the posts it's referencing, and previous posts in the discussion.  

It's not me parsing things too much... it's you not doing it enough: You conflate and mix up things so I have to take your points separately and show you for the confused equivocating mess that you are. You talk about knowledge as if it's the same thing as truth, you ramble about science as if it's about what's outside of science, you talk about quantum indeterminancy as if it's philosophical indeterminism. These are all completely different things.

But that's just shitty arguing on the internet 101.  Maybe has something to do with the autism?

Nope. You are the one in error and failing hard here. It's not 'shitty arguing on the internet 101' to deal with a person's points point by point. It's Debating 101 to deal with a person's points 101. This thread is a discussion about three will and when it becomes a disagreement the points are SUPPOSED to be dealt with accurately which means dealing with them accurately point by point.

I have dealt with your points throughout this thread well, I've dealt with your digressions well, I've dealt with your strawmen well. And I'm dealing with your points point by point well here too. You're once again, going on an irrelevant digression and making a strawman out of me. You make many incorrect points and then think you can just say the equivalent of "Hey dealing with them all separately and not mixing them up like a numbskull like I do is taking them out of context!" you're pathetic.

  You've said you have a really bad short term memory, so maybe just a thought at a time is your comfort zone.  That would fit with Mafia, where you didn't seem to be pulling information too deep into the past in a game we played.  You were always mostly focused on the content of the very last post.  I thought that was really odd at the time.  

This is just your own lack of self awareness and failure to deal with me dealin with your points so you just make an Ad Hom and strawman out of me. It's also an irrelevant digression once again.

It's ironic that you say you have a lack of awareness.

It also explains why you think all analogies are bad. 

I don't think all analogies are bad. Total strawman. Where did I ever suggest that I think all bad analogies are bad? I think obviously terrible analogies are bad. Many people make good analogies which I agree with but it's a waste of time saying "Nice analogy!" when I can just drop them a kudos.

This is just you being unable to deal with the fact that I explained why your analogy was bad.

Because you're unable to put them in the context of the discussion and see that there are relevant, on topic, similarities between two things. 

Wrong. You conflate two similar things as if they're the same. Do you not understand that your analogy fails regardless of the similarities when the actual point you were trying to make (that I'm a hypocrite and as irrational as the theists) fails completely because your point relies on something that is in fact different?

You're just relying on stupid people agreeing with you because they can't tell the difference as well as they can. Ironically, as literal-minded as I often am: It's you lacking nuance here.

After all, I'm extremely good at differentiating and distinguishing things. The problem here is you are lumping everything together. You just make fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. I'm really good at debating, certainly by AF standards anyway, and whether anyone agrees or not is irrelevant. I'm dealing with your points well and pointing out all your errors well.. and that's the point.

Instead, you just view it as A = B. 

Nope. You're like this: "Not A=A because it kind of looks like A to me and I can't tell the difference".

And then you get all worked up because A doesn't equal B. 

Bahahahahah! It was you doing that! It's me who keeps saying science isn't phiosophy. You keep saying A=B. I don't. You're totally projecting your own mistakes onto me.

So you say you're done discussing with me but decide to attack me and declare victory like a theist instead? Noted.

Which is never what anyone intends with an analogy.

No but you are supposed to compare relevant similarites. Your whole point relied on the idea of me being just as irrational as a theist for believing in causality. So then I pointed out why belief in causality is no less rational by default than belief in acausality or belief in neither... whereas belief in God is clearly irrational because it postulates a complex entity without necessity. And I also pointed out you're a hypocrite because you believe in acausality without evidence just as I believe in causality. But evidence isn't required for something that is just as likely to be true as not true. The same can not be said for God.

I explained thoroughly why your analogy failed. I've explained many times the mistakes you are making. So when I show repeatedly all the mistakes you are making you just make a false, analogy a strawman declare victory and attack my character LOL. If you act this way in every debate then you need banning for trolling.

But if you can't try to view it through context, how are you going to figure that out.

As I have demonstrated... I can deal with context. I deal with your points point by point and this is just another cop-out from you. This is just another way to not deal with my points and my accurate pointing out of your mistakes.

It also fits with not being able to read people well. 

This isn't about reading people this is about dealing with your invalid arguments and irrelevant points and digressions.

What does this expression mean? when you're not considering the context is nearly impossible.  Also fits with why you can't tell if I'm trolling you or not. 

It doesn't matter because as per the updated AF Rules trolling doesn't have to be intentional to be considered trolling. You're trolling whether you're doing it on purpose or not, I just can't be bothered to report you because it probably won't be taken seriously.

But let's say you're right. Less say I'm thinking you're trolling when you're not. And that's why the report wouldn't be taken seriously.

That is once again completely irrelevant to this debate and has absolutely nothing to do with the very clear logical fallacies you have been repeatedly making. It has nothing to do with your clear inability to deal with my points properly, your inability to address my argument properly and your resort to dishonest tactics such as strawmen and declaring victory after you've clearly lost the debate.  

Another thing is how terrible you are with hypotheticals.

LOL!!!!!!!!

That's literally my STRONGEST QUALITY IN LIFE.

I'm better at nothing than that. This is what you've been shit an in this thread. You keep going on irrelevant digressions and being unable to deal with the fact that your own hypothetical is irrelevant even if it were true.

  Part of it may be the context thing again.  You have to remember all ideas are being presented in the context of the hypothetical premises.  But you're also so rigid in your thinking, that maybe you just can't do it for whatever reason.  Because you're uncomfortable even pretending you are wrong about something?  Or maybe it's not a personality trait, and it's just a lack of ability.

Once again it's just you making errors and being unable to notice them or admit them so you just go on another irrelevant digression. This time you resort to blaming my autism and saying I'm taking stuff out of context when all I'm doing is dealing with your points and pointing our how wrong they are.

You can ramble on and on about my autism and taking things out of context as much as you like... it won't change the fact that you have made repeated mistakes and I have repeatedly pointed them out. It won't change the fact that you continuously misrepresented my position. It won't change the fact that you are wrong and I am right.

This is what happened:

1. You brought up science after I showed in the OP it wasn't relevant.
2. I explained why it wasn't relevant.
3. You continued to say that it was and told me I was denying science even though I already made it clear that I accept science.
4. You repeatedly did this over and over despite the fact I told you that I wasn't talking about phenomena I was talking about noumena.
5. I kept pointing out to you why your digression was a digression.
6. I pointed out to you that you were conflating truth and knowledge by acting like nothing can be true outside of what we can know just because we can't know it.
7. You repeatedly ignored my points.
8. You repeatedly misrepresented my points.
9. You repeatedly demonstrated that you can't tell the difference between science and philosophy.
10. After you completely failed to demonstrate why science was relevant after I had repeatedly said I was specifically talking about areas in which it can't be relevant and you kept pretending that I wasn't making that very clear... you resorted to comparing me to a theist rather than admitting that I was right.
11. Finally, you ended with a false analogy and after I showed it to be false, you said you were done with the discussion and decided to declare victory by saying that this was about my own autism and taking things out of context... rather than address the fact that I had repeatedly showed you to be wrong.

If you can't make basic philosophical distinctions, perhaps you should stay the fuck out of the philosophy subforum pal?

---

So, are you going to respond to any of his points, or...?

Just the shitty armchair psychoanalyzing then?

Exactly. It's clearly all he can do after losing a debate.

Next he'll be like "To me, this wasn't a debate".

I don't give a fuck what you call it, or if it's a debate or not... henryp. If it was a debate... you just lost. You just said a load of incorrect bullshit which I demonstrated to be false and irrelevant.

---

So, are you going to respond to any of his points, or...?

Just the shitty armchair psychoanalyzing then?

Just shitty armchair psychoanalyzing.  Our discussion on the topic was over.  He's talked about it being a waste of time for a few posts now.  I also think it was a waste of his time.   Seems like moving on to something else is in order, no?

It's over because you clearly lost and you decided to covertly declare victory by saying that this was just an example of me taking things out of context because of my autism... without demonstrating how I'd done any such thing LOL.

You are the one acting like a theist here. How ironic.

---

P.S. The only mistake I made was after I said that I wouldn't continue discussing with you if you ignored two questions I had to ask.... I completely forgot I said that and I therefore let you ramble on and on more with irrelevant nonsense and fail to answer my questions properly. So that was my only mistake: the mistake of continuing to waste energy on you on our so-called "discussion" (you never even began to discuss with me properly as all you did is keep talking past me, make fallacies and end it with an attack of my autism.) This was about philosophy and not science... and your little "discussion" with me was nothing but a testament of your own inability to actually address the philosophy.

In future discussions with you, I'll try to make sure you actually answer my questions and if you don't I'll ignore you from then on. And you can ramble on as much as you like with irrelevant nonsense and Ad Homs as you covertly declare victory. I don't give a fuck anymore, I'm used to most people in life and even most people on internet forums making very basic logical mistakes and being unable to see them. I'm used to them confusing their own inability to make sense of what I'm saying with me not making sense. Have you ever considered the possibility that I may be far more logical than most people and it really is most people who make logical errors and I really do point them out while they fail to point out my own? Because you sure as hell love to point out how you think my autism affects my negatively but you don't seem to consider any of the positive aspects of how it affects me... I almost don't think in pictures at all. I'm extremely verbal. It's very easy for me to focus on semantics and logic. And yes those two are connected. And no, "just semantics" isn't an impressive retort. Note:

This may seem yet another “just semantic” issue, but I never understood why so many people hold semantics in such disdain. After all, semantics deals with the meaning of our terms, and if we don’t agree at least approximately on what we mean when we talk to each other there is going to be nothing but a confusing cacophony.

And that is exactly what is happening here. I care about semantics and you don't... it's just like the confusing cacophony Lawrence Krauss makes when he mistakes something for nothing and was rightly criticized not just by philosophers of science but by more philosophically minded physicists .

I think you should stick to the science subforum and stay out of the philosophy subforum. There's nothing wrong with being crap at philosophy such as you very very clearly are... and still being interested in it. But at least don't clog up philosophy threads with irrelevant digressions about science that have nothing to do with the philosopical discussion at hand.

So yeah, in future I will discuss with you but as soon as you fail to address my questions and repeatedly make the mistakes over and over... rather than waste my time and energy on repeating the same things over and over to you as you make the same mistakes over and over... I'll happily just ignore you from then on out and let you have the little victory in your head and the heads of those who agree with you because they don't understand any better than you do.

Source of quote provided: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk...ucing.html

If you want to actually learn something... watch this:

[henryp]

I can break it down pretty simply.

If I say: "Hypothetically, let's say there's an acausal random event, and somebody knows the result of that random event before it occurs..."

Does it matter if acausal events are possible, or knowledge of the future is possible?

[Succubus]

I can break it down pretty simply.

If I say: "Hypothetically, let's say there's an acausal random event, and somebody knows the result of that random event before it occurs..."

Does it matter if acausal events are possible, or knowledge of the future is possible?

And people wonder why I despise filosofy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of the two parts, known outcomes are more troubling because the issue for free will in that case is metaphysically neutral...though, both present obstacles to the notion. That formulation is pretty rough, combined. It suggests that the outcome of some "choice" may be, in reality....an acausal random outcome. So, not is any sense caused by being freely chosen....not that you have a choice anyway...because the outcome is also known. It erodes the claim of free will and it's contingencies.