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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @chaosprime @gabrielamadej
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
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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 @chaosprime
subjects of experience. if you want some taxonomy resulting from this where you can express this particular view of free will---which would be hard to do, because as i've already said in different words, all philosophical questions tree-branch into other issues--you cannot
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
have that even in principle. it's not philosophy's fault if you're too cognitively autisitc/rigid to understand this--i think you're a programmer, iirc, so this would make sense.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
lol, wow, the manipulativeness is getting really over-the-top in here
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
your dogmatism is what is over the top here. since this will get heated due to your sheer lack of intellectual irresponsibility, our discussion is ending here. but please feel free to read Dr. Being's much more carefully stated, nuanced, and negative-emotions-free article instead
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
lololol my subjective experience of freedom to do this is positively overwhelming
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.