interesting how you dishonestly subthreaded this to re-apply a question already answered
-
-
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 -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
that would be an example of a non-reductive physicalist way to subsume and describe the character of the agents who already have, much like the substances in the broader ontology already described, the causal power to make free decisions based on their own judgemnets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
the freedom is already gained and inheirted because now there is no rigid chain of causality nor anything like a principle of sufficient reason commanding, in any way that undermines any view of freedom in action, that *could* otherwise makes their causal power not their own
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
you could apply this to a cartesian substance dualist version of an agent, a non-cartesian substance dualist version of an agent (e.g. e.j. lowe). you could deny selfhood itself and just repackage it under the appropriate semantics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
if nuance and knowing there are multiple ways to answer a generalized question based on already stipulated conditions (which are already controversial and posited 'just as an example') is "dancing around the issue" and not "giving definitions" to you--you have an engineer's mind
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
or you are just being intellectually dishonest and get emotional when things that *vaguely resemble* real bullshit that *does otherwise exist* in the academy tick you off. so you dismiss x, y, z, as 'dancing around the issue', as 'bullshit', as whatever.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
in either case my recommendation--you autistically focused on the specific example i chose, digging more into the hashtag 'literature', which i still generally recommend--is focused on you using the intelligent you already have in an honest way to gain a broader perspective
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gabrielamadej @chaosprime
ironically your OP invokes that people are attached to maintaining free will--understandably, many people are--but you are equally as attached to denying its existence. it's very transparent. dishonesty or not, you're being stupid and defiling yourself with your dogmatism
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
hilariously, i consider the absence of any usable referent for the concept of free will to be a huge problem and would fucking love for one to show up probably why the bullshit makes me so mad
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.