Kawlinz

Hey I loved your last album Where Maps End, I'll look at this a little later today and kick over a few funds

I'm more thinking that provocateurs could join the group and just start firing guns to scare people or worse.

Actually don't worry about replying. I don't want to spend another 10 days trying to iron out details but ending up in the same place. I stopped my last debates about determinism because they stopped being fun, and I don't see how that will change now. Anything that proclaims determinism is true - I'll accept as noise without a concept behind it, not worth repsonding to

My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept this is just clever rhetoric, it's not a rational argument, there's nothing in it. in a deterministic universe humans still experience subjective states, it has the experience of accurate/inaccurate within that subjective state, even though the states are predetermined, thus concepts exist within the consciousness - You can see it kind of like watching a movie. I can't change the end of the movie but i still experience the movie. I still hurt when the heroine hurts and feel glad when the guy finally gets the girl. That doesn't mean I have any say in the movie. Show me the rhetoric. If you say my noises are not an accurate reflection of reality, and I say my noises are reality, what do you mean when you say my noises don't reflect reality?

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?" As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose. the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will existsyou do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept

Never proposed it to be an argument.

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?" As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose.

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago. What's the rule? Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented. I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument. Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument? Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension. It's weird when determinists expect matter to conform to a concept

I'm sure you're getting advice from lots of different people about the most effective treatments, I hope everything works out in the best way for you

However little the topic of Free-will vs Determinism progressed, it's more than it's progressing now that the conversation has been stopped. Should we stop all other debates that have little to no progress? How are we even defining progress? Do you mean progress in terms of conclusion or in terms of things learnt like debating skills? and where is the evidence of this lack of progress? So far, the only evidence you have given is anecdotic. You can check any of the free will threads in the past I've been a part of. Gimme a message if you like and I can show how quickly things stop progressing if you take a pro-determinist position. Should we stop other debates that follow the same kinds of roadblocks? ie: Someone debating that they are not alive, yet they make posts on a message board? Well, I don't participate in them, that's stopping a debate. Thankfully, there's not a huge amount of threads where people take that position seriously, hence, no ban. If half the board becomes people who put this position forward, then yeah, I'd say ban that conversation too. I'd argue that banning those types of debates is progress.

Banning philosophical conversations is not what a philosophy forum is about. Even taking a pro child-abuse stance in a debate about child abuse should be allowed. After all, if the person promoting child abuse comes to a philosophy forum looking for a debate then he or she is seeking the truth and If he or she learns that child abuse is wrong then maybe some children will be saved from being abused and the consequences of being abused. Socrates said that he only knows he knows nothing to remind us of the complexity of philosophy. To dismiss determinism as a self refuting statement or "self detonating statement" is ignoring the complexity of the topic. As far as I'm know, Stefan has banned (or at least strongly discouraged) the discussion of Determinism and UPB on the boards. This is his reasoning (taken from here:http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/25920.aspx) He finds the debating of complex topics like ethics and determinism to be rather fruitless for various reasons. This is his opinion based on his experience. He has strongly discouraged the discussion of such topics due to his experience of fruitlessness. What if other users don't find it fruitless? It doesn't matter. It seems only Stefan's opinion matters. I he where argumenting that the debating of complex topics on the board is fruitless, then where is the evidence for such claims? However, on this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/19312.aspx, Stefan gives a different reason for strongly discouraging the debating of determinism through the closing of the thread. Now it's because he has no respect left for it. Why would he have no respect left for such a complex issue? Also, one last little thing I noticed on his thread about debating UPB: Petty insecurities. All you people with social phobia that struggle with this phobia everyday for years that in many cases can bring on a panic attack just at the thought of talking to a stranger on the phone, it's all just petty insecurities and you are selfish and inmature to put them over your search for the truth. This is a very arrogant and abusive thing to say to those of us who suffer from social anxiety disorder. Do you recognize the difference between taking a pro-child abuse stance in a debate and promoting child abuse? Were you here when a large number of threads were dedicated to free will / determinism debates? It basically took over the forum. Why would Stef have no respect for the determinist position? I can't speak for him, but I know my last attempt on this board just took too much time with little to no progress. It was a subject that I enjoyed thinking about once upon a time, but now have no desire at all to speak about. I wouldn't call it disrespectful nor arrogant, even if I had my own philosophy board and banned the discussion. I'd call it time saving.

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant. So what would be arrogant in that situation? Not having any respect left for the determinist position and not being willing to debate or let others debate on the subject on a philosophy forum is arrogant because it treats the determinist position as inferior and not deserving of debate. Furthermore, should we ban the discussion of any topic that Stefan strongly disagrees with? I don't have any respect for the determinist position (I say this as a former determinist). I've debated the free will position on these baords while it was 'banned', so the ban was more like keeping it to a thread or two instead of infesting the entire forum as it did in the past. Should we ban topics of discussion that stef strongly disagrees with? Of Course? Well, if a topic like "people are not alive" kept coming up over and over from people, despite all of those people being alive to make these posts, then yeah, I say ban the topic. Promoting child abuse is banned, even if it's not in the rules. I think banning certain things like these are perfectly fine. Do you think that stef bans topics simply because he strongly disagrees with them?

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant. So what would be arrogant in that situation?

So you don't know the truth, but you are trying to find out the truth yet you believe one cannot know the truth. That makes no sense. This thread was not created to debate about Determinism vs Free-Will, but rather to debate wether or not a philosophy forum should ban the discussion of such an important philosophical issue. Personally I find it to be unreasonable. Just imagine Stefan telling people like Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein (both determinists) that he has no respect left for their position and that he would be wasting his personal resources debating with them. It's disrespectful to say the least. If they were trying to tell stef that the universe is determined, even though they use concepts (which don't exist) to move his brain matter into a configuration that accepts the deterministic position, and when confronted with the contradiction between their process and their conclusion they ignore the contradiction, then yeah... it would be wasting his personal resources. Is it disrespectful to tell people that you don't have respect for a position that they have? i don't think so... what's disrespectful about it?

Thanks man! I was gonna make my own but you've saved me the troubles.... Kudos!

Buying goods is voluntary. But if you own the store and choose to either not charge taxes or not pay the taxes for your business... we know what happens.

reminds me of the 'kissing machine' story that I saw coming from japan a while back.

*delete* not actually curious

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief. You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...." then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless. You seem to think knowledge is a 0% or 100% proposition. I don't believe we can discount anything completely. But I also don't believe we need to. We live based on probabilities. If we can come to a decision that something is 80% or 90% likely, that is good enough for human life on most issues. For more important issues, maybe we need 95% or even 99%. But I don't believe we can come to 100% or 0% and that's alright with me. The only thing necessary for it to be useful to choose to have a conversation is a belief that it's at least 50/50 that the conversation is taking place. Or even that it's unlikely but there isn't much to lose so why not go along with it if it feels enjoyable. It does not require a 100% belief to make something worthwhile. ... But what if we did need a 100% belief to make this specific conversation worthwhile? See..., it's pointless... right?

Correct. May. What % goes into that "may" is another discussion. Anyway, I'll leave you to your repeated postings of seeming absurdities. If you believe something sounding absurd makes it 100% impossible, you are entitled to that belief. You don't talk like you think. If we can't discount the possiblity of square-circles, then we can't discount any contradictions. If we can't discount contradictions (like true = false) then any discussion is pointless. it seems like you want to have a conversation while ignoring these possibilities. Your language also indicates this. See if you were to type something like:"Correct or not correct. May or maybe not. What percentage or not percent goes into or not into that may or maybe not is another discussion. Or it may be the same discussion, or it may not be a discussion at all. Anyways, I'll leave you to your repeated posting of seeming absurdites. Well, maybe it's just a single posting, of an actual absurdity, or maybe there was no posting at all with no hint of absurdity...." then I'd be more inclined to think you actually believed what you were writing, that contradictions may be valid. If you state that I'm repeatedly posting absudrities, you must leave open the possibilty that I dind't post anything, because we can't discount contradictions. Conversation is pointless.

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience. If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case. All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh? Correct. I assume you're posting this stuff to try to make the fact that humanity lacks certainty sound absurd because it could have implications that also sound absurd. But the world can be absurd. In fact, many have found that it seems to be quite absurd. Or maybe you're just being playful. If so, enjoy. Well, I may be posting while not posting at all.

As far as I'm concerned, everything you said are indeed possibilities, however slight. In fact, the rabbit hole goes even deeper since there is of course the possibility that "you" aren't who "you" think you are. We simply don't know what's going on metaphysically. We only have our best guesses to go on. That doesn't mean my best guess isn't pretty similar to yours. I just recognize it as a best guess given the always limited information available to me as a human being lacking omniscience. If you read my posts on this thread, what I agree is that we should stop focusing on what "atheist" means and speak in terms of what % probabilities someone believes there is that whatever you are asking about is the case. All percentage guesses are made with incomplete information, and all percentage guesses could be both correct and incorrect at the same time. It might be a guess and not a guess. possible and impossible, slight and not slight. You and not you. We know and we don't know, all at the same time. Lacking omniscience while possessing it. Stopping focus while completely focused. We might even understand and not understand each other at the same time. Trippy and not trippy, eh?

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered? So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time... I agree. There is that possibility. ... Or not... or maybe it's both possible and impossible simultaneously... maybe you agree and disagree. Wouldn't that be kind of meanful and meaningless at the same time? Full of contradictions and without contradictions. Precise and imprecise. Fun and not fun. Using language and not using language. So you agree that atheists don't need absolute knowledge in order to be atheists, and they do need absolute knowledge at the same time. or maybe you disagree. or both.

And yet something that is both a particle and a wave at the same time does exist. Would you have said that was possible before it was discovered? So maybe your statement is both true and not true at the same time...

Are we talking comic book hero gods that didn't create the universe (or everything) like Zeus and Posidon? Or are we talking about gods that are uncaused causes, omnipotent/omniscient, creators of everything while escaping being a part of everything?