Kevin Beal Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Except that thats not what I did. Your argument was "Look, I decided it, therefore I decided it". your first sentence was literally "I decided that I'm going to think about a white elephant." and then you used that as proof that you decided. I am not saying, I didnt decide, therefore I didnt decide. I am pointing out various different things about thought that dont add up. No, that's not what I did. I didn't use "I decided" as the premise of an argument. I simply pointed out that this was my experience. You can tell me that I didn't experience it, but that would be ludicrously insane. And yes you did say that you didn't decide therefore you didn't decide. It's the only thing that makes your argument work. The "various things" about thought that don't add up are that they are things you didn't decide (hence the "in one respect, thus every respect" comment). Don't just make stuff up, guy. If I have no control over my thoughts, then maybe you could just go fly a kite. You keep yelling in my ear, with clear indignation, that sound does not exist. Are you completely insane? Well, it doesn't matter if you're insane or not, right or wrong, because you're a Determinist, so things are just what they are, and no preferred states exist. You get to be as irrational as you want. How convenient... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Sambrook Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 If you define a thing as magic up front, then it doesn't matter what the logic is in between the definition and the conclusion, it's still going to be magic by the end. The problem with his arguments (and every other determinist) is to assume that a rational universe necessitates a single outcome and that no conscious process can, of it's own volition, create another outcome. He's a neuroscientist and not a philosopher. His theory of ethics has problems too. I'm inclined to think he should stick to neuroscience. Harris earned a BA in Philosophy from Stanford in 2000, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA in 2009. He has also researched and written books on philosophy. You may disagree with his conclusions, of course. What criteria properly determines whether someone is, or is not, a philosopher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 No, that's not what I did. I didn't use "I decided" as the premise of an argument. I simply pointed out that this was my experience. You can tell me that I didn't experience it, but that would be ludicrously insane. Heres what you said I decided that I'm going to think about a white elephant. A thought about a white elephant is now in my head. Did I not decide that? Was it not of a white elephant? Is it not a thought? P1) I decided Im going to think about a white elephant P2) A thought about a white elephant is in my head therefore C) I decided to think about a white elephant ( yes, you put in the negative, as in "Did I not decide that", but its your conclusion, nevertheless) Your conclusion is contained in your premises. You keep yelling in my ear, with clear indignation, that sound does not exist. Are you completely insane? Thats nothing like what I am saying. I am not denying that thoughts exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 P1) I decided Im going to think about a white elephant P2) A thought about a white elephant is in my head therefore C) I decided to think about a white elephant ( yes, you put in the negative, as in "Did I not decide that", but its your conclusion, nevertheless) That's not an argument, but a series of events. One thing happened after another. I'm providing a description. But whatever. You don't choose your thoughts anyway, so this is completely pointless. Harris earned a BA in Philosophy from Stanford in 2000, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA in 2009. What criteria properly determines whether someone is, or is not, a philosopher? Haha. Oops! That's what I get for assuming. Apparently he has better credentials than I do. I disagree with his conclusions, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 That's not an argument, but a series of events. One thing happened after another. I'm providing a description. But whatever. You don't choose your thoughts anyway, so this is completely pointless. Of course its an argument. but as you say, whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Of course its an argument. but as you say, whatever Last word! Neener neener neener! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Last word! Neener neener neener! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQlPjUSj7no 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted June 28, 2016 Share Posted June 28, 2016 Every Determinist: "You have no control over your thoughts and actions! I'm gonna argue with you so that you can change your mind about your capacity for volition!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Every Determinist: "You have no control over your thoughts and actions! I'm gonna argue with you so that you can change your mind about your capacity for volition!" ye, doesnt disprove determinism in any way, and isnt contradictory. Its almost like you dont understand determinism, even after many many discussions about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 "Discussions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 ye, doesnt disprove determinism in any way, and isnt contradictory. Its almost like you dont understand determinism, even after many many discussions about it. It's a performative contradiction. Determinists do not try to convince brick walls or even dolphins. Just humans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 ye, doesnt disprove determinism in any way, and isnt contradictory. Its almost like you dont understand determinism, even after many many discussions about it. No, but it does chip away at it because: It's a performative contradiction. Determinists do not try to convince brick walls or even dolphins. Just humans. Why debate with someone who believes in free will if you don't think that they can control their thoughts, let alone observe them consciously? Are thoughts really random and out of our control? If so, then why haven't I accepted determinism yet? Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition? Or is there supposed to be an argument I am destined to hear that will hit all the right gears in my head? And if I do accept determinism, then what? {Why} is it important to determine if determinism is true and free will is false? How do I benefit from that? How do you? How did YOU come to accept determinism? Were you always deterministic or did it require some rigorous thought? If so, how is that not free will and of your own volition? Educate me, neeeel and Natasha. Help me understand it. Answer all of the above as they are my most pertinent questions about it. I'm ready to stop defending free will and instead open myself up to arguments for determinism. Doesn't mean I'm looking to be convinced, just educated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Man can will what he does and so can will what he wills. You can choose to follow your desires or not follow them or you can choose to generate new desires. You can't exclude the doer from the process of willing because the doer is part of it. We're not subject to the determined factors that began with the big bang anymore. Unlike all other matter and energy we can project futures and act according to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 ye, doesnt disprove determinism in any way, and isnt contradictory. Its almost like you dont understand determinism, even after many many discussions about it. I already explained how it's contradictory in like a half dozen ways. It's almost like you didn't process any of what I said. Determinists are terrible listeners. I already won this debate, like, 5 times over. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 I already explained how it's contradictory in like a half dozen ways. It's almost like you didn't process any of what I said. Its not contradictory that a determinist argues with someone. You havent shown that it is. If determinism is true, that doesnt stop determinists from arguing about free will, I dont know why you think it would? Is it because the belief in determinism is contradictory with arguing about determinism? Again, it isnt. You can believe that theres no one there to make choices or to decide to change, and still argue with them about free will. Im not sure where you got the idea that you were winning, or showing contradictions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 Determinists are terrible listeners. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 If determinism is true, that doesnt stop determinists from arguing about free will, I dont know why you think it would? Because arguing denotes a potential for changing the understanding of the person being argued with/towards. Because NOT arguing with a brick wall denotes that the person arguing can choose whether to argue it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted June 29, 2016 Share Posted June 29, 2016 You havent shown that it is. If determinism is true, that doesnt stop determinists from arguing about free will, I dont know why you think it would? Yes, I did. It was the whole "listen to my reason, so you can reject reason altogether" thing. Hence the bad listening... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 No, but it does chip away at it because: Why debate with someone who believes in free will if you don't think that they can control their thoughts, let alone observe them consciously? Are thoughts really random and out of our control? If so, then why haven't I accepted determinism yet? Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition? Or is there supposed to be an argument I am destined to hear that will hit all the right gears in my head? And if I do accept determinism, then what? {Why} is it important to determine if determinism is true and free will is false? How do I benefit from that? How do you? How did YOU come to accept determinism? Were you always deterministic or did it require some rigorous thought? If so, how is that not free will and of your own volition? Educate me, neeeel and Natasha. Help me understand it. Answer all of the above as they are my most pertinent questions about it. I'm ready to stop defending free will and instead open myself up to arguments for determinism. Doesn't mean I'm looking to be convinced, just educated. we have been over these questions many times, each time I explain it to you, and then next time, the same questions come up. I guess either I am not explaining very well, or you arent grasping it. Im not sure what use explaining it again would be. Determinism does not equal things not changing determinism does not equal things not happening. Its possible to believe in determinism (or, as I want to put it, see that determinism is true) and not sit in a pile of your own shit until you die. Things still happen, even afterwards. Thinking does not automatically preclude determinism, or prove free will. Thoughts cant think other thoughts. the voice in your head is a thought. there is no you choosing thoughts. There are just thoughts, and other thoughts saying "look, I chose that thought" How would choosing a thought even work? Can you point me to the mechanism? Between one thought and the next, how does it happen, what inserts itself between the space between one thought and the next, and chooses what the next thought is? and so on 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Sambrook Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 I think that what you have written is correct, neeeel. I am currently enjoying the following audio book, which goes into this subject in useful ways: https://www.audible.com/pd/Consciousness-and-the-Brain-Part-1-Audiobook/B00HU7VWI0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted June 30, 2016 Share Posted June 30, 2016 Maybe it's because your answers usually have nothing to do with what I ask, as with the case of your post. You already know I've accepted that change is possible in a deterministic paradigm, so why are you telling me stuff I already know? I didn't say anything about lack of action and stewing in your own shit, you're operating under my outdated understanding of determinism and still not answering about the benefit of me accepting determinism, why I haven't accepted it as of yet, how I'm supposed to accept it, and how you've come to accept it or if you've always been a determinist. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Determinism does not equal things not changing determinism does not equal things not happening. Its possible to believe in determinism (or, as I want to put it, see that determinism is true) and not sit in a pile of your own shit until you die. Things still happen, even afterwards. Thinking does not automatically preclude determinism, or prove free will. Thoughts cant think other thoughts. the voice in your head is a thought. there is no you choosing thoughts. There are just thoughts, and other thoughts saying "look, I chose that thought" How would choosing a thought even work? Can you point me to the mechanism? Between one thought and the next, how does it happen, what inserts itself between the space between one thought and the next, and chooses what the next thought is? and so on Determinism does mean things don't change in a sense. Everything would be pre-determined so what happens tomorrow is set as a matter of natural law. It cannot be changed and you'd have no control it whatsoever. You only experience the illusion of change and control. Things happen but that's not the same as change. Change involves a change in the future which determinism precludes. Thinking does preclude determinism. In thinking you can know and project the future and so can change it. For determinism to be true there can only be one possible future. But when you can think there can be many possible futures. You can choose your thoughts even though they individually arrive involuntarily. You can set the criteria by which the mind throws up thoughts. You can control the mind. It requires focus but you can clear your mind of thoughts right now, stay alert and wait for a thought to come to your mind. You will notice there was a you separate from your thinking. Looking at as one thought to the next is missing the woods for the trees. It's like looking at between two brain atoms to find the consciousness. You need to zoom out a little. Your thoughts are not just random (like crazy people's), right? You can have some control over what comes up, what is focused on and the context of the thought. And those actions lead to certain other thoughts popping up that would not otherwise have come up. So you are to some degree choosing your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Some determinists do speak out of experience. They experience a lack of will and control, a lack of the kind of behavior that best captures our free will. If you don't follow your reason despite desire, or fear, then it's kinda true that you don't have free will. And more than that, it could seem like an unreasonable imposition, like being asked to do something huge for little reward, or like it's an entitled expectation. I almost don't think a Determinist should be able to talk about free will, unless they have shown an ability to exercise what they consider the illusion to some degree of proficiency. If they are lazy bums, with little impulse control, then they should probably just shut up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 You already know I've accepted that change is possible in a deterministic paradigm, But your questions are along the lines of "Look! these thoughts happened!! Therefore free will!" Or else you are already accepting free will in your question, and using it to prove free will, eg "Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition?" the concept of volition requires free will to be true, so you are basically saying, if free will is true, then free will is true. If your understanding of determinism has changed, then its not noticeable to me. the benefit of me accepting determinism, why I haven't accepted it as of yet, how I'm supposed to accept it, and how you've come to accept it or if you've always been a determinist. If its true, its true. I dont know what relevance the benefit is. asking about the benefit is along the same lines as "I will believe in god, because it makes me happier" How should I know why you havent accepted it? What do you mean "how you are supposed to accept it"? I have laid out the logic of why I think its true, so either I have done a very bad job, or you arent really understanding, or its more important for you to believe in free will. I have already explained why I came to accept it. I looked at how thoughts happen, how decisions happen, and its clear to see that there is no person or thing choosing the thoughts, that you cant predict your next thought, that you cant think a random thought, that thoughts cant think other thoughts, that thoughts come from nowhere, and then disappear, that thoughts appear in consciousness, rather than consciousness actively doing them, that the voice in your head is a thought, and no different from other thoughts,and so on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Some determinists do speak out of experience. They experience a lack of will and control, a lack of the kind of behavior that best captures our free will. If you don't follow your reason despite desire, or fear, then it's kinda true that you don't have free will. And more than that, it could seem like an unreasonable imposition, like being asked to do something huge for little reward, or like it's an entitled expectation. I almost don't think a Determinist should be able to talk about free will, unless they have shown an ability to exercise what they consider the illusion to some degree of proficiency. If they are lazy bums, with little impulse control, then they should probably just shut up. What about determinists who have all the determination in the world to succeed? Not that I know of any, just wondering if that's a possibility. That's the ONE thing I want to be shown. A determinist whose determination means something. The determinists that come on here are only a small sample of people and tend to fit the description you gave, and I'm starting to see the pattern in them. It makes me wonder if there are any who aren't just determinists to excuse their apathy and lethargy. But your questions are along the lines of "Look! these thoughts happened!! Therefore free will!" Or else you are already accepting free will in your question, and using it to prove free will, eg "Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition?" the concept of volition requires free will to be true, so you are basically saying, if free will is true, then free will is true. If your understanding of determinism has changed, then its not noticeable to me. Not an argument. If its true, its true. I dont know what relevance the benefit is. asking about the benefit is along the same lines as "I will believe in god, because it makes me happier" How should I know why you havent accepted it? What do you mean "how you are supposed to accept it"? I have laid out the logic of why I think its true, so either I have done a very bad job, or you arent really understanding, or its more important for you to believe in free will. I have already explained why I came to accept it. I looked at how thoughts happen, how decisions happen, and its clear to see that there is no person or thing choosing the thoughts, that you cant predict your next thought, that you cant think a random thought, that thoughts cant think other thoughts, that thoughts come from nowhere, and then disappear, that thoughts appear in consciousness, rather than consciousness actively doing them, that the voice in your head is a thought, and no different from other thoughts,and so on. I would say you haven't done a good job because you just commit the fallacy fallacy all day. Instead of being fixated on how I pre-suppose the answer in my questions, try to answer it within the context of the question. Learn to entertain the idea, it doesn't mean you accept it. Take for an easy example: Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition? I would imagine, a deterministic counter argument in the context of that question would go as such: Yes you will think about it logically, but there is no volition involved. The knowledge you've acquired thus far would click with the next argument I provide and you would have no choice but to accept it. But that hasn't happened yet, and if I may be so bold as to speak determnistically for a moment--it never will because I choose not to accept it! DUN DUN DUN!!! BONUS EXAMPLE: {Why} is it important to determine if determinism is true and free will is false? It is important to accept determinism because free will deludes you into thinking you have any sort of control over your life, when really, all you ever really do is praxeologically act towards highest self interest at all times. Even when you believe you "want" something like becoming a famous actor, you don't really want it because you are not it and haven't taken the neccesary steps to achieve that goal. Your true self interest is in watching soap operas and throwing your popcorn at the TV yelling at the characters, "I should be one of them right now!" If you accepted determinism, you would be achieving your goals much more prominently, and surrendering control to the whims of the universe and your higher reasoning without daring to doubt it! But I digress...I'm embarassed that I'm actually arguing with myself better than you have been with me. I obviously don't believe any of that, and they may not even be the best arguments for determinism, but they sure as hell more convincing than anything you've said thus far, neeeel. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 not an argument. Not sure what you mean. I am pointing out that you are presupposing free will in your questions. I realise thats not an argument in support of determinism, but it is important. I keep pointing it out, but you keep doing it. I would say you haven't done a good job because you just commit the fallacy fallacy all day. Instead of being fixated on how I pre-suppose the answer in my questions, try to answer it within the context of the question. Learn to entertain the idea, it doesn't mean you accept it. No, Im not doing the fallacy fallacy. And your questions arent arguments, so I am not assuming them true or false. I am saying, if you are already presupposing the answer in your questions, then you are asking the wrong questions. It similar to the question "do you still beat your wife", unanswerable in any meaningful way. Take for an easy example: Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition? I would imagine, a deterministic counter argument in the context of that question would go as such: Yes you will think about it logically, but there is no volition involved. The knowledge you've acquired thus far would click with the next argument I provide and you would have no choice but to accept it. basically what I have already said, there is no volition. Thats been my whole point from the start, that theres no volition, no will. How have you missed that? Your question isnt an argument, so I dont know why you think it requires a "counter argument" , and your counter argument wasnt an argument. 2/10 for effort. my answer to the question is "there is no volition" Try giving me an argument ( you know, in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion) and I will give a counter argument. But I digress...I'm embarassed that I'm actually arguing with myself better than you have been with me. Im embarrassed for you that you think you have done any of this. You havent argued for determinism, just strawmanned, as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 What about determinists who have all the determination in the world to succeed? Not that I know of any, just wondering if that's a possibility. That's the ONE thing I want to be shown. A determinist whose determination means something. The determinists that come on here are only a small sample of people and tend to fit the description you gave, and I'm starting to see the pattern in them. It makes me wonder if there are any who aren't just determinists to excuse their apathy and lethargy. Sam Harris is pretty successful. There are probably others. But yea, that's one motivation, I think. And technically, there is no fallacy fallacy unless he says that the existence of a fallacy is proof of something, rather than evidence, or cause for concern. The fallacy fallacy is not a real fallacy because so few people literally speak in those terms (to say that the presence of a fallacy is therefore proof of some proposition). It would be a problem if we accepted the conclusion of an argument in order to make that argument. That's one of the few actual fallacies out there. The problem is that a debate has to start somewhere, and you can't logically start from "it's an illusion" because the proposition "it's not an illusion" has no possibility of being demonstrated without some kind of argument for it being an illusion, already. And he's a hypocrite too, since he can only say that thoughts are chosen in no respect because they are chosen in no respect. The presence of one respect in which it is not chosen is support for the argument like saying "causes have effects." i.e. it's too obvious to mention, and by itself means nothing for the debate. That's why he must repeat himself in more indignant terms until someone relents, as if it did anything but make him look stubborn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Sore loser alert (post #119) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Sore loser alert (post #119) nice try 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 nice try Feeling sore? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Feeling sore? nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Hmm. I wonder if the kind of people who are generally attracted to Determinism feel ineffectual / thwarted, and in disowning their own thwartedness, try to infect others with it? That would explain so much! The not listening, the going in circles, the "it is because I say so," the accusations of "magical thinking," being drawn to these debates which go nowhere, etc. I think my arguments for free will are pretty original, fresh, and I try and change it up, come from new angles. Determinists always have the same old boring arguments: "causes have effects, you dumb dumb," "free will is magic." To the Determinist, there are no preferred states. Things are just what they are. So, there is no personal responsibility, because there's no possibility of other states than what is. They can be wrong, be aggressive, can be terrible listeners, process literally nothing, be hypocrites, contradict themselves like crazy, and it's not bad. It just is. How convenient having no preferred states is... I wish that I could operate that way, but my integrity keeps getting in the way. Damn it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 Determinists always have the same old boring arguments: "causes have effects, you dumb dumb," "free will is magic." none of my arguments were these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 none of my arguments were these. Thoughts cant think other thoughts. the voice in your head is a thought. there is no you choosing thoughts. There are just thoughts, and other thoughts saying "look, I chose that thought" How would choosing a thought even work? Can you point me to the mechanism? Between one thought and the next, how does it happen, what inserts itself between the space between one thought and the next, and chooses what the next thought is? and so on Thoughts appear and disappear. There is no selection process, they are there, and then they arent. There is no point at which we can see consciousness intervene and go "ok, we will think that thought". There are thoughts about thoughts, but these are thoughts like any other, and with these, there is also no selection process, they are there, then they arent, and there is no point at which we can see consciousness intervene and go "ok, we will think that thought". Its not possible to predict the next thought. Any prediction of the next thought IS a thought, and you didnt predict it. Its not possible to think a random thought. To go into RAM , as it were, and select a thought at a certain location. If you observe the process of selecting a random thought, theres usually a stream of thoughts, with thoughts about those thoughts, commenting on whether they are random enough. Or else, the mind goes blank and waits for inspiration. Or there is a set of stock "random thoughts" that obviously arent random, Thoughts appear in consciousness. In that sense, they appear similar to sights, sounds and other sensory data. You wouldnt claim that consciousness was doing the sounds, sights etc. If consciousness was doing thought, then it would be a simple matter to stop thinking about something, or to simply select a different thought. Anyone who has experienced a racing mind, or a persistent train of thoughts, knows that its difficult/impossible( I acknowledge that learning/training is possible, but thats nothing to do with consciousness on its own, but is a mark of the flexibility of the biological system as a whole, it doesnt imply that somehow consciousness stepped in and did something) The language you use implies there is something else outside our consciousness that uses the consciousness. "We use our consciousness". Perhaps thats not what you really meant? Or you meant that consciousness uses consciousness? If you meant the former, what is it that volitionally uses consciousness? If the latter, it sounds like the idea of being able to lift yourself by your own bootlaces. ( I use the language too, theres no problem with using it, I just want to be clear that by my using it, it doesnt imply that I believe in free will) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 right, none of what I wrote is "causes have effects " or "free will is magic" , thanks for clarifying that for everyone 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts