*intellectually dishonest and hasn't done the appropriate reading required--due to prior biases & annoyances @ otherwise real problems in the literature [from the autistic writing style, to "unfortunately i do not have the space to address the best objection to my view, etc.]
-
-
Replying to @gabrielamadej
that's a bit much it is in absolutely no way my responsibility to perform an exhaustive literature search until i've convinced myself of a position nobody can point me to literature about that isn't talking directly past the point
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
it is, but you don't have some huge obligation to fulfil it. it's just a weak epistemic norm if you want to better know what you're actually talking about
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
i know enough to know people talk nonsense it doesn't help that nobody addresses the core incoherence of the concept, that either choice is caused and therefore unfree or it's uncaused and therefore even less free than if it were caused, other than by pointing at this handwaving
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
that relies on a manifestly contestable view of causality. here's a different view of causality: substances/"agents" possess causal powers rather than belonging to a linear chain of causality. they have dispositions toward some effect. now your dichotomy has already collapsed
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
'self-determined' decisions are now possible without either preferring any background view in physics, whether the universe is generally casually determinate or indeterminate to x degree.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
the hashtag literature addresses your "core incoherence"--which is a philosophy 101 concern--and has been long considered and debated long before contemporary analytic & cont. philosophy. see? this is exactly what i'm talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
you uh cannot actually "God take Philosophy 101" me into reading so much handwaving on this i start thinking in terms of it i immunized myself to that by, y'know, taking philosophy courses, and actually going to them
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
you said this last time ("i've already gone deep already" etc). i'm not telling you take philosophy 101, i said your concern was philosophy 101 tier & has already been talked about & debated endlessly & directly. you said the exact opposite was the case--when it is not the case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
i don't mean that no one has offered definitions, i mean that when i ask *you*, who want me to believe that there are compelling defenses of the concept, to show me some literature, i get something that refuses to define its terms
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
i cannot imagine something less productive than going around shopping for useless definitions that aren't even at issue in random literature no one is even willing to speak up for as compelling
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
i have already defined my terms. i introduced substance causation for you, i introduced an example of how it could contrast with event casuation, i then said how this can be shaped by introducing a causal powers view, and then applied it 'higher level entities' like sapient
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
you have defined... some terms? sort of? in this edifice you have built, what does free will consist of?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 more replies
New 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.