As I pointed out "free" here has no meaning. One's will is by your description causally responsible for one's actions. Whether one's will is free rela...
Now I think understand. You, and your will, are always the cause of your actions. But this is irrelevant to morality. Whether you are morally responsi...
I don't see your point here. How does the study of psychology disprove my claim that desires are rooted in physical needs? You know we are all very si...
I would not say that Smith is justified in believing B, because his reason for believing B is A, that Jones will get the job. And Jones is not getting...
I've studied quite a bit of philosophy, especially metaphysics, and I've come to realize that the same principles which make reality intelligible are ...
I don't understand. You seem to have a double standard of responsibility. In the one case you said: "One can have a will but it might not be responsib...
You said that in the case when one's will is not free, that individual is not responsible for one's actions. You are now saying that one's will is alw...
OK, so a person has a free will sometimes, but not all of the time. Sometimes the person's will is free, sometimes it is determined. We still don't ha...
I agree that in seeking knowledge we assume that there is such a thing as what you call "the real universal". The point I made earlier in the thread, ...
Your definition states what it means to have "will". It doesn't state what it means for that will to be free. It just states that if one's will is res...
You could very well have a look into your own head Banno, to find the truth about that. But that would not be justification, and that's why there is a...
Because I believe in free will, and for the reasons discussed already, I believe free will is incompatible with determinism. To say that one's actions...
The issue though, is that "the stuff in the head" is very real, just like the thing in the box is very real. We can call the thing in the head a Belie...
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Once we realize that determinism is wrong, this puts us on the right track toward understanding the unive...
I understand what you're saying, but how is "the way you construe the world" any more constraining than the forces around you? I can't choose to think...
It's quite obvious that what we can do is constrained by the forces around us. I don't think I can jump to the moon for example, and if I break the la...
This is false, there is no legal definition of "free will", it is a philosophical term. And philosophical terms often have a meaning in common vernacu...
This is where I disagree with you. I think that my desires are rooted in my physical being, physical needs, instinct and such. not the templates which...
Yes of course I am making that assumption. It appears blatantly obvious to me, that my personal desires are completely distinct from society as a whol...
To be aware of many different things is distinct from focusing on one particular thing. To focus on one particular thing requires a conscious decision...
I don't see how my want for something can be interpreted as a template given to me by society. Let's say that I desire sexual pleasure, how is this a ...
It seems to me, like I am always consciously aware of many things at the same time. I hear many different things going on around the room, I look arou...
Just as libertarian free will is incoherent, and therefore an illusion, to the compatibilist, so moral responsibility follows into the same category. ...
No, I'm talking about the number of different objects around us which we can be consciously aware of at the same time. This is what you call holding i...
Good reply. However, we are creatures of free will and therefore despite what society gives us to form our habits of desire, we ultimately still choos...
I think that the average person is aware of about six objects at once, without having to count them. So this premise is incorrect, we are focally cons...
There are different levels, or degrees of consciousness. The soul uses the brain to obtain higher degrees of consciousness. When a person is knocked "...
Right, the compatibilist redefines "free will" such that what "free will" signifies is something which is compatible with determinism. All that this i...
You are misrepresenting Manzotti's position. The word is an "external object" which is "encountered". Therefore it must exist prior to the thought whi...
The "thing thought about" is in the future. We have a distinction between the act of thinking, which is in the present, and the "thing thought about"....
When I think about something I will do tomorrow, that, "what I will do" is a thing in my mind, and it is a future thing. In the example, he is thinkin...
It's relevant because of Manzotti's claim that mental activity is a rearranging of past things. But it is clear that in the mind there is future thing...
After reading through the interview, I would say that my original criticism still holds. Manzotti does not adequately distinguish between past and fut...
Oh sorry Augustino. I missed the whole interview. I read the first part, thought it was the end of the article, and lost interest. I'll read the rest ...
That's not at al what the article actually says: Notice in particular the phrases "language inside our heads", and "we call this thinking". This is ac...
I don't really see the point. Words in the mind are representations of the physical things. This makes them memories. If the question is where are mem...
If two different things experience time in two different ways, this does not mean that one of them does not experience time at all. If we know that di...
No, I mean why wouldn't you think that a rock could experience duration but not be able to tell you about that experience? We would think that other a...
Yes, this is a problem isn't it? There is wholesale rejection of religion, and along with that, a rejection of the spirituality and metaphysics which ...
To the average person, (that is unless one starts to think about exploding elephants and things like that), the concept of matter has no relevance. If...
Matter is actually quite well defined in Aristotelian physics, as the underlying thing which persists through time, when change occurs. It allows that...
This is exactly the problem, how is matter scaled? By its defining terms, it cannot be scaled because an object's form is always what is measured. As ...
My opinion is that what is at issue here is the nature of matter. It is not properly an issue of form, though it may be best described as an issue of ...
I think there is something wrong with this premise. You are describing "human" as something evolved. But then you are suggesting that there is definab...
Comments