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
-
-
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
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 -
Replying to @chaosprime
interesting how you dishonestly subthreaded this to re-apply a question already answered
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej
you're really leaning on this "dishonesty" gotcha aren't you like, i guess it doesn't matter to you if it's bullshit if you think it might manipulate me was this answer already given the "i can't answer that" answer? because um
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime
your question has multiple answers on the view i already have defined. it could be applied to a transcendental subject of experience causally dependent on lower-level monistic/"physical" materials to operate but not independent from them in either properties or substance
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
it isn't interesting that we could throw a label at something what is the will in this construction and what makes it free
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
i already gave you multiple models of 'the will'--since there are mainy readily available answers *after* already establishing causal powers; i have already told you this. i think you know this and you're just trolling me since i already declared the convo over. therefore...
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.