so your argument against compatibilism is basically "no u"?
i don't have to read everything Piers Anthony has ever written to know that he's crap. if these numbnuts motherfuckers had come up with a usable definition of free will that's neither "casuality but let's pretend" nor acausality you would have brought it up by now tbqf
-
-
i'm not even talking about "everything". just at least some of it
-
you're just throwing edgy rhetoric all over the place and dismissing half-understood ideas you refuse to get more acquainted with
-
or possibly i actually studied philosophy beyond the 100 level and have a lot of frustration with the gigantic nodes of bullshit still embedded in it
-
as far as refusing to get more acquainted with things, the primary metastatic mode of continental philosophy is leading you down the garden path with so much bullshit you forget your own name and buy into it just out of sunk costs, so yeah, i refuse sometimes
-
Tweet unavailable
-
what, the "if people have this property we're not going to define, then necessarily fundamental particles have it, and now everybody is going to use this to baselessly assert that Real Smart Scientists proved free will exists" theorem? i mean, the question is what it should do
-
I don't need to prove that it exists, only that your contempt and begging off the question is on shaky ground. You're smarter than this.
-
begging off what question? the Free Will Theorem and Strong Free Will Theorem literally demonstrate nothing about free will other than that if it existed, it would be a property of particles, with Conway then demonstrating free will's existence by handwaving
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you tell me you have ever read Chthon while stoned and still believe that first one, I'll take your word for it.
-
it's honestly a coin flip as to whether i've read Chthon at all but i definitely wasn't stoned at the time if i did
-
Then I propose that your assertion, while not proven wrong, lacks key supporting data
-
duly noted i'll also freely admit that On A Pale Horse is without qualification a good book and it's a shame he had no idea what made it one
-
For the most part, Anthony is a classic Golden Age writer, as in "The Golden Age of Science Fiction is fourteen." Best example is the "Bio of a Space Tyrant" books. Loved them when I was young. Can't imagine trying to read them now.
-
lol given the polemic throughline of those i definitely see why i appreciated them when i was thirteen and also am pretty sure it was not good for me to be reading them
-
He is a super nice man and I loved the Xanth books when I was a kid so I am prone to defending him, but I have no illusions about the quality of much of his work.
-
Also come on how can you not love a guy who refuses to give up on a porn novel he wrote in the Seventies and publishes it twenty years laterhttps://boingboing.net/2010/06/14/piers-anthonys-pornu.html …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Also this kind of reminds me about HARLIE and Auberson arguing about moral philosophy. "They're working on it." "They've been working on it for two thousand years. I am unimpressed with their rate of progress."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.