ok you read like two sentences of it and misread it even at that. 1. moral responsibility doesn't entail that punishment is justified. 2. compatibilism is sometimes expressed as the view that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, as it states
-
-
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
even if we accept such a definition and even if we erroneously believe that entails that punishment is justified, what makes someone capable of moral responsibility reveals interesting facts about agency that go beyond the moral implications of it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
all of that shit is a lot of song and dance around the fact that we *are going to* exert interference against collections of molecules that are inconvenient to us so we like to make up doctrines that permit us to do so
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
ok whatever makes you feel better about dismissing large hosts of philosophical work you haven't read
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
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
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
i'm not even talking about "everything". just at least some of it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
you're just throwing edgy rhetoric all over the place and dismissing half-understood ideas you refuse to get more acquainted with
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is 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
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @djinnius @gabrielamadej
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
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
-
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.