Is FDR really about philosophy and it's discussion?

[suomipoi]

....junk here removed.....  I suggest that just as an excercise, you start building a notion of truth, falsity etc. that will work well regardless of the form of time evolution, and then compare it to your old one (if the old one is even well-defined) to see if it is really lacking any essential qualities.  I suspect you'll find that the new one is at least as good as the old one.

As Far I'm understoof Metric is talking about Logical determinism  which is merely a description of true false statements. Metric is this the only type of determinism you are identified with or are there others?

Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all
propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false.

 

 

 

AFAIK Arius refers to Theological Determinism or Predeterminism aka ALL events are predetermined (only one possible future outcome).

The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept of a creator deity
dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been
predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity".

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance. The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain

 

 

Feel free to correct If In understood something wrong.

[Arius]

Merry Christmas!

I'm definitely pro-logical determinism and con-predeterminism.

[Metric]

 

....junk here removed.....  I suggest that just as an excercise, you start building a notion of truth, falsity etc. that will work well regardless of the form of time evolution, and then compare it to your old one (if the old one is even well-defined) to see if it is really lacking any essential qualities.  I suspect you'll find that the new one is at least as good as the old one.

As Far I'm understoof Metric is talking about Logical determinism  which is merely a description of true false statements. Metric is this the only type of determinism you are identified with or are there others?

Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all
propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false.

 

 

 

AFAIK Arius refers to Theological Determinism or Predeterminism aka ALL events are predetermined (only one possible future outcome).

The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept of a creator deity
dictating all events in history: "everything that happens has been
predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent divinity".

Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance. The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain

 

 

Feel free to correct If In understood something wrong.

 

Sorry to have taken so long to reply, as I've been busy for the last 10 days or so and wanted to avoid getting pulled into long forum discussions.

When I say "determinism" I refer to deterministic time evolution (aka "unitary time evolution"), as encoded in the laws of physics as presently understood -- the one-to-one relation between past and future states of the universe (presumably this is roughly what a philosopher would call predeterminism).  However, the objection raised in the previous discussion (as I understood it) was basically that philosophy can't work in a deterministic universe, because this one-to-one evolution rules out a working definition of truth/falsity.  So as a counterexample to this claim, I defined a notion of truth/falsity which works regardless of how time evolution takes place.  I do not know how a philosopher would characterize this approach in terms of logical determinism -- I am basically just saying that truth/falsity/philosophy doesn't need to depend on the unnoticable microscopic details of how time evolution works in our universe.  It would be cool if you could translate that position into philosophy-speak.

[Arius]

I am basically just saying that truth/falsity/philosophy doesn't need to depend on the unnoticable microscopic details of how time evolution works in our universe

Well, let's see if that claim sticks together.  I'm going to argue about time as an abstraction of perception, rather than a physical object (I know there's that space/time thing, but I'm not talking about that).  That is, time is a model for explaining the natural phenomenon of things changing as part of the sensory experience of existing.  Insomuch as that's a valid assertion, time doesn't exist.  Just like economy, five, and democracy don't exist, abstractions are not existent objects.  From this, both the past and the future are non-existent components of this same model.

Truth is also a concept.  In the way I'd use the word "time" to indicate changes in reality, I'd use the word "true" to indicate either consistency, validity, or soundness (hopefully all three) as properties of claims.  So, I think your claim is: claims which we make to explain the physical changes in reality do not change the functioning of the system we use to evaluate the truth of claims.  I'd agree to that with a caveat:  One of the two models has primacy over the other.  That is, an explanation must be true to be valid (yeah, that's a tautology).  Because of this, I would argue that no model of reality which invalidates claim-evaluation (for any reason) can be valid...because it cannot be evaluated.

However, for the large part, I agree that the details of physics do not change the validity of philosophy (as a practice).  Empiricism and methodological naturalism are both derivatives of consistency, validity, and soundness.  It would be extremely puzzling if a scientific discovery led to the invalidation of science.

[Nielsio2]

 

Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion.

 

If determinism is true, you're not willing to pursue it, because it may involve adapting how you understand wisdom, integrity and virtue?

Because you're not willing to adapt your understanding of wisdom, integrity and virtue, you won't consider determinism as possible?

[agun]

 

I think the fact that intelligent people are debating about free-will vs determinism is enough evidence that the solution to the problem is not obvious. If such solution is not obvious then I think the discussion should have a place in a forum about the discussion of philosophy. Even if such solution where obvious I think that we should allow the discussion for the sake of the journey towards truth of those who do not yet grasp the obvious solution. I also think that debating improves our debating skills, which is always useful.

However, as Stefan is the owner and has expressed his dislike towards the discussion of such topic I think that, as guests, we should respect his preferences and discuss determinism vs free-will elsewhere. Or at least until he changes his mind, if he ever does.

 

Stefan, I still await your response to my argument in favor of the discussion of Determinism vs Free-will on this philosophy forum. Do you still hold your position that Determinism has no place in a philosophical discussion?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

It would be extremely puzzling if a scientific discovery led to the invalidation of science.

 

Determinism, by its very nature, attempts to invalidate philosophy.

Rather than approaching reality from a clean slate, and working to understand, determinism scribbles all its absolutism over the the surface of the slate, then cries "Oh, you don't take my scribbles seriously." (It's the Determinists that that are crying; I never heard Feynman crying. Yeah, that could be considered a low blow, but, how low is it to expect me to take your word for it, based on nothing but your feelings.)

It's okay, though, keep trying. Stefan does not have to defend the decision to reject the "theory of non-theory". I, and, hopefully, others, will gladly do the job.

Determinism's main point is that all has been decided. If you claim otherwise, you're not arguing determinism. Or, you could try to show how determinism allows for variation; oops, that would invalidate determinism. You could try the approach that no one, really knows, except that that would mean that you don't know, either. It's a wonderful thing to present an opponent's position, exactly, for what it is, rather than resorting to fallacious straw men.

So, all has been decided. I'm so relieved. Wait a minute. That's a lie. Nothing's been decided (except by Krugman). Show me one concept or percept that is 100% agreed to by every living thing.

Hence, philosophy. We all don't agree. We don't, really, know. Three magical words: "I don't know."

Determinism claims: "I know".

Why would a forum, based on the principle of "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", have any sympatico with the principle of: "I know".

It would be like (and this is ongoing) a Microsoft Windows user expecting sympathy from a Linux forum.

Notice I didn't say dismissal, I said sympathy.

If you've, actually, read the terms of agreement, you'd "know" that Determinism has been done to death. (7 billion people on the planet, what makes you so special?)

I like the free market approach. Go ahead and express your ideas, just don't start crying when someone demolishes them. If anyone promotes nonsense, aren't I entitled to use nonsense to refute?

 

[agun]

 

Three magical words: "I don't know."

Determinism claims: "I know".

Why would a forum, based on the principle of "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", have any sympatico with the principle of: "I know".

If you've, actually, read the terms of agreement, you'd "know" that Determinism has been done to death. (7 billion people on the planet, what makes you so special?)

 

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.

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

Three magical words: "I don't know."

Determinism claims: "I know".

Why would a forum, based on the principle of "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", have any sympatico with the principle of: "I know".

If you've, actually, read the terms of agreement, you'd "know" that Determinism has been done to death. (7 billion people on the planet, what makes you so special?)

 

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?

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

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 whether or not a philosophy forum should ban the discussion of such an important philosophical issue.

 

Okay, Mr. Straw Man. Where, exactly, did I claim, much less believe, that one cannot know the truth.

My comparison was to the difference between being open to new ideas and claiming all ideas to be pre-determined.

Had you quoted my entire post, you'd have to confront: "I like the free market approach. Go ahead and express your ideas, just
don't start crying when someone demolishes them. If anyone promotes
nonsense, aren't I entitled to use nonsense to refute?" Did I promote the ban on determinism? Yes, or, no? Did I fire a shot across the bow? Hell, yes.

Let's move on. What is this thread about?

You seem to have very specific ideas about what is up for debate. Let's debate your ideas.

Oops, you didn't express any idea, except that all ideas should be debated.

Okay, let's debate the idea that none of your ideas are worth debating. Sounds fair, if all ideas are worth debate.

[agun]

 

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?

 

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant.

[agun]

 

Okay, Mr. Straw Man. Where, exactly, did I claim, much less believe, that one cannot know the truth.

My comparison was to the difference between being open to new ideas and claiming all ideas to be pre-determined.

Had you quoted my entire post, you'd have to confront: "I like the free market approach. Go ahead and express your ideas, just
don't start crying when someone demolishes them. If anyone promotes
nonsense, aren't I entitled to use nonsense to refute?" Did I promote the ban on determinism? Yes, or, no? Did I fire a shot across the bow? Hell, yes.

Let's move on. What is this thread about?

You seem to have very specific ideas about what is up for debate. Let's debate your ideas.

Oops, you didn't express any idea, except that all ideas should be debated.

Okay, let's debate the idea that none of your ideas are worth debating. Sounds fair, if all ideas are worth debate.

 

Calling me "Mr. Strawman" was unnecesary agression.

Why would a forum, based on the principle of "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", have any sympatico with the principle of: "I know"..

Now you belive that you can know the truth? Then I guess when you reach that stage of "I know" the forum will no longer have any sympatico for you because: 

Three magical words: "I don't know."

I'd like it if you could explain yourself a little better because right now this makes absolutelly no sense to me.

If you dismiss my ideas as nonsense, then why are you replying?

If you want to debate wether or not my ideas are worth debating (impossible to argument without ad hominems, btw) then go ahead, but please do it in another thread. I want to keep this thread on topic.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

Calling me "Mr. Strawman" was unnecesary agression.

 

When you misrepresent someone's statements, it's a straw man fallacy. When someone misrepresents my words I defend myself.

But I suppose it's okay for you to call others disrespectful and, or, arrogant:

 

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant.

 

Then we arrive at the essence:

 

 

If you want to debate wether or not my ideas are worth debating (impossible to argument without ad hominems, btw) then go ahead, but please do it in another thread. I want to keep this thread on topic.

 

Let me be clear: are you suggesting that I cannot express my views in this thread?

Treading dangerous ground here. Especially, when my initial post made no mention of you, whatsoever.

You chose to quote "part" of my post, take it personal, misrepresent it, won't own up to it by responding to my defensive post, and now want me off the thread.

Excellent example of why some topics are degenerate, and therefore, non-debatable.

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

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?

 

You are correct, it's not disrespectful. I should of said It's arrogant.

 

So what would be arrogant in that situation?

[agun]

 

 

 

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?

 

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?

[agun]

When you misrepresent someone's statements, it's a straw man fallacy. When someone misrepresents my words I defend myself.

I was not attacking you, If I had it would of been an ad hominem, not a strawman. You took it personal and decided to defend against it by calling me names when all that was needed was to simply point it out.

Let me be clear: are you suggesting that I cannot express my views in this thread?

No, I cannot stop you from derailing the topic. I asked you to do it in another thread in order to keep this one on-topic.

You chose to quote "part" of my post, take it personal, (...)

It's exactly what you have done in your previous posts. Both quoting only parts and taking it personal.

my defensive post,

Freudian slip?

and now want me off the thread.

No, I want you to keep on topic. I never said I wanted you off the thread. I suspect that is part of the imagined injury you are defending against. Maybe you projected your rejection onto me.

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

 

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?

 

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?

[agun]

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?

 

 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)

I also find message board debates to be rather fruitless when it comes to complex and ambivalent topics like ethics and determinism, because definitions keep changing, and you have to keep circling back, which is far easier to do in a verbal conversation. The time lag between responses, as well as interruptions and tangents from other people, also continually derail the conversation.

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:

Secondly, I understand that it can be somewhat intimidating to have a verbal conversation about important philosophical topics, but really, it seems to me fairly selfish and immature to put one's own particular discomfort above the search for truth. I can tell you very candidly that I was not at all comfortable debating a professional politician such as Michael Badnarik, or Jan Helfeld, who has interviewed a large number of prominent media figures - or even having conversations with subject matter experts, such as I have done for a good portion of the last year. However, I put my own anxieties aside, because the cause of truth is more important than my own petty insecurities.

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.

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

Kawlinz:

Just a suggestion. It is possible to review any member's history of posts. At times, it might prove prudent to get some insight before becoming entangled.

I'll be taking my own advice.

[agun]

 

Kawlinz:

Just a suggestion. It is possible to review any member's history of posts. At times, it might prove prudent to get some insight before becoming entangled.

I'll be taking my own advice.

 

Would you care to share the insight you may have gathered from my previous posts? It might be useful for me to grow as a person, provided that such insights are free from countertransference.

In any case, any argument that takes the form of "he is wrong about x because previously he said y" is an ad hominem fallacy.

[MarkIX]

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.

I'm a determinist, I wasn't always but when I heard Sam Harris' arguments on the subject I couldn't maintian my free will any longer. That doesn't mean I find the topic worth debating. In fact when You say Determinism you have to be sure that people understand what you mean. I would suggest to you based on the general culture of this board that when you say "Determinism"  a lot of people here parse it as "You are always going to be the shit person your shit parents made you and there is nothing you can do about it", that's how I felt about it. Nobody wants to accept that. You can debate about determinism but what does it mean to be a determinist? I am one and I still don't know.

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)

I also find message board debates to be rather fruitless when it comes to complex and ambivalent topics like ethics and determinism, because definitions keep changing, and you have to keep circling back, which is far easier to do in a verbal conversation. The time lag between responses, as well as interruptions and tangents from other people, also continually derail the conversation.

He finds the Messageboard 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?

Note the inclusion of "Messageboard" in you passage. I don't think he is suggesting that debate in the normal congress of things is useless just that certain types of communications media and more suited to certain topics, or more precisely certain bredths of topics.

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:

Secondly, I understand that it can be somewhat intimidating to have a verbal conversation about important philosophical topics, but really, it seems to me fairly selfish and immature to put one's own particular discomfort above the search for truth. I can tell you very candidly that I was not at all comfortable debating a professional politician such as Michael Badnarik, or Jan Helfeld, who has interviewed a large number of prominent media figures - or even having conversations with subject matter experts, such as I have done for a good portion of the last year. However, I put my own anxieties aside, because the cause of truth is more important than my own petty insecurities.

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 want to be a victim or do you want to solve your problems? If you want to be a victim I can't help you, but if you want to solve you problems, should it matter to you what others people think of your problems, after all they aren't the ones who are going to try and solve them. Perhaps Stefan has just the disorder you talk of and has learned to cope better with it by trivialising the anxiety, are you going to tell him he can't do that because it doesn't suit you? Should I tell you that you shouldn't reply because any response that is not totally positive (and I do mean Totally) is going to cause me anxiety, or should I accept that my anxiety isn't your problem?

[Kawlinz]

 

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?

 

 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)

I also find message board debates to be rather fruitless when it comes to complex and ambivalent topics like ethics and determinism, because definitions keep changing, and you have to keep circling back, which is far easier to do in a verbal conversation. The time lag between responses, as well as interruptions and tangents from other people, also continually derail the conversation.

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:

Secondly, I understand that it can be somewhat intimidating to have a verbal conversation about important philosophical topics, but really, it seems to me fairly selfish and immature to put one's own particular discomfort above the search for truth. I can tell you very candidly that I was not at all comfortable debating a professional politician such as Michael Badnarik, or Jan Helfeld, who has interviewed a large number of prominent media figures - or even having conversations with subject matter experts, such as I have done for a good portion of the last year. However, I put my own anxieties aside, because the cause of truth is more important than my own petty insecurities.

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.

[agun]

 

Do you want to be a victim or do you want to solve your problems? If you want to be a victim I can't help you

Thank you but I did not ask for your help.

 

[agun]

 

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.

 

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.

[Kawlinz]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[cherapple]

What does it have to do with FDR? Each of us makes our lives about philosophy and discussion, or not.

[agun]

 

What does it have to do with FDR? Each of us makes our lives about philosophy and discussion, or not.

 

FDR claims to be the largest philosophy conversation in the world. I don't think banning or strongly discouraging the discussion of certain topics is the way to have a philosophy discussion. I have argumented why I think this way in previous posts.

 

[agun]

Hi Stefan, I am still awaiting your response to a post I wrote almost 3 months ago. I'd really apreciate it if you could take the time to respond to it.[]

 

 

Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion.

 

I agree, but without a discussion aren't we making the journey of a determinist towards truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue harder?

 I myself have contradictory ideas that support both free-will and determinism. I am leaning towards free will because I am typing this message, but I also think about the Poincaré recurrence theorem and how a scientist claims to have calculated the recurrence time for our causal patch and our universe. It means that the number of events possible is finite and they repeat, so in the amount of time calculated by the scientist (named Don Page) we will be having this discussion again, thus there is no free will, but I am pretty sure I'm deciding to write this message.

As you can see I am not 100% sure that we have free-will. I think the best way I can advance in my path towards the truth of the subject is through the discussion of it with other people. I am confused as to why you would close the topic and obstaculize such discussion.

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

What is a troll?

http://kb.iu.edu/data/afhc.html

In email discussion lists, online forums, and Usenet

newsgroups, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a

bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting intended

to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The term can also

refer to someone making such a posting ("a troll") or to the action

("trolling", "to troll").

 

The content of a troll posting generally falls into one of several

categories. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of

common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a

newsgroup or mailing list, or a broad request for trivial follow-up

postings. The result of such postings is frequently a flood of angry

responses. In some cases, the follow-up messages posted in response to

a troll can constitute a large fraction of the contents of a newsgroup

or mailing list for as long as several weeks. These messages are

transmitted around the world to thousands of computers, wasting

network resources and costing money for people who pay to download

email or receive Usenet news. Troll threads also frustrate people who

are trying to carry on substantive discussions.

 

People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt discussion, and

to make trouble. The best response to a troll is no

response. If you post a follow-up message, you are contributing to the

resulting clamor and most likely delighting the troller. Before

posting a response, consider the following questions:

• Have responses already been posted by others?

   

   

   

• Will my post add any information that others are not likely to be

  aware of already?

   

   

   

• Is the issue resolvable, or will discussion turn into name-calling?

   

   

   

• Should I send private email instead of posting publicly?

   

   

   

• Will I later regret the contents of what I am posting?

Please deal with trolls constructively, and do not participate in

trolling. By refraining from doing so you will help make mailing

lists and online forums much more enjoyable venues for discussion.

[Lowe D]

Are you asking for help, agun?

If you are, Stefan might try to help you, if you called into his show tomorrow.

[Lians]

You seem to agree that there's no null hypothesis in the question of determinism versus free will, yet you instist on being able to debate it. I assume you understand that pursuing such a topic would be an exercise in futility. What consitutes a debate? I would say that finding the answer to this question would be a more worthwhile endeavour.

On a side note, wouldn't it be funny if a bunch of threads debating "foo vs bar" started popping up, with people arguing themselves into a frenzy?

[Demitri]

 

Well, philosophy is about the pursuit of truth and wisdom and integrity and virtue, and if determinism is true, those things don't exist, so determinism has no real place in a philosophical discussion.

 

 

 

I am dismayed that the topic of determinism is a closed topic.

I understand what trolls are, and how heated people can get when being trolled.

I
think anyone that supports free market would be remiss in banning any
topic of conversation which holds the potential to help someone find
clarity; and therefore disagree with the banning from that point of
view.



In a free market, a business can't survive without customers that want
what the business supplies. This principle should apply universally if
the free market concept is valid. In the same way, a discussion can't survive if no
one wants to talk about it. This is one of the principles that brings me
to my request below.



However, if the topic itself is troll-like, then I can understand why it
would not belong on a themed forum. Likewise, I would not expect to
find a discussion on recipes of human cannibalism on a children's themed
forum either, and could understand why such a topic might likewise be
banned; and therefore agree with the banning from that point of view.

I have yet to hear a single solid argument from a determinist; but I understand many people believe in determinism. In this way, the pursuit of truth (that truth being the falsity of
determinism) is what those who believe in determinism need to discuss.


I believe it is in the best interest for everyone to allow discussion
for those trying to work thru the claims of determinism and thereby find
clarity.

Many intelligent people feel a need to discuss thoughts
and ideas in order to find clarity concerning them (this is the basis of
why philosophy has value).

In a world with so much deciet, it can be difficult to find clarity
(this is why there is a distinct need for philosophy discussion today).



Therefore, so long as there are those who seek clarity on the topic and
would like to voice their own words about it, it would be better to
allow discussion rather than to forbid it.



So I ask: Please remove the gun in the room of the fourm by removing the ban from the topic of determinism.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

So I ask: Please remove the gun in the room of the fourm by removing the ban from the topic of determinism.

 

A review of prior postings might reveal that the gun is held by the "determinists". The so-called ban against determinism is a straw man. Numerous threads have been created to broach the topic. AFAIK, every one of them has degenerated, with little useful discussion. What I have read can be summarized as "You've banned determinism, therefore, determinism must be right." Not once have I read a "determinist" answering a direct question. I've even put forth the apples and oranges position: that determinism, though possibly applicable to chemistry and physics, does not leap into the arena of the human mind. No response.

I do understand the frustration of seeing that a "certain" topic is banned from a philosophy forum, but I will counter with this: It's good to have an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out.

[Stefan Molyneux]

 Calling a forum ban a gun is like calling a date refusal a rape.

[Demitri]

 

 Calling a forum ban a gun is like calling a date refusal a rape.

 

If I wish to discuss determinism here (which I really don't, since determinism is completely incorrect - thus, I'm only talking principle), would I meet with negative consequences for doing so?

Somehow I find it difficult too equate "No, I don't want to go out with you" with "Dont talk about this, or else".

Had I not used the line about the gun in the forum room, would your response have been blank?
It was the most provacative part of what I said, for certain; but it was the least important part of everything I said.
Does nothing else deserve comment?