Heiko

If a reason is a reason there is no choice, right?

Why does your agent want to go to C? Did he choose so? Is this just "given"?

I doubt this. The M.W.I. for example is just one attempt to explain how the cat can be equally alive and dead. First there is math....

This is what one might think - if the cat was anything else beside what we observe. But that would mean that it was more than it's worldly being, it's...

That's the problem here: Where shall be the difference?

What do you mean by "ontological" here? "Ontological" in the sense of modern physics seems to explicitely mean to describe the things as they appear. ...

How much energy would we need to apply to a human being to actually determine it's indeterminacy at quantum level throughout? My guess is "ouch..."

Sorry, English isn't my first language. But the point is to make: The subject appears sovereign to itself.

Transcendental freedom is perceiving yourself as subject, which means - at least to some extend - perceived conscious control over youself. This freed...

I'm not sure I can follow this distinction. Even a quark jumping around wildly and a-causal cannot be called free without raping the concept. Trancend...

So you would call an act independent of and maybe even contrary to any conscious decisions an act of free will?

Just if you look at it very superficially. The form of a cloud is very disputable, not even to speak of fog. And there are many things that look circu...

In other words you cannot. Saying a concrete thing was a bottle is just as aspectual as saying it is glass.

How do you point to glass OR the "bottle" in a case of a glass bottle?

I don't think you are talking about the actual thing. You know to put bottles into a glass-container, no?

As you pay for it's disposal per kg. A bottle can easily be just glass... :)

But doing a bad thing is never an act of free will.

That is the same as saying we do not percieve colors. We perceive a black-red screwdriver, we perceive .... Fair enough - why would we need abstractio...

Kant, for example, could not explain it's resistiveness and preservance in other ways. There cannot be a will to lift a thing up and one to hold it on...

Claim? That is the established definition of the word - go figure!

Because you are trying to give some? I did so.

Of course. But that does not say anything about the definition of the thing, does it?

Speculation is not my primary buisiness.

Weight. Resistance. Per definition: a measure of matter.

Why is that oversimplified? The basic definition of material objects was given. Mass is a good keyword. Mass implies inertia. Reality is resistance.

Matter occupies space and - in common day life - has a weight. Anything that has these properties is made of matter. That's the definition.

Who says something like that?

Under which circumstances? E.g. the keywords open(and closed)-world-assumption, different modi of negations might be worth a look (for the sake of the...

Better not, as it seems.... Just forget about that kind of bullshit. Reinsure the rationality of such patterns of thought asking yourself what they ar...

No problem. You are the way you are... ;)

Do you consider that a rational question? What should that be good for? If I was a religious person I could simply say that divine matters are not for...

Maybe that is part of the problem: You do not even recognize the process you are part of. How could you? It is about intentionality, as you pointed ou...

I thought, I was. For example we know even the most basic ontological basis' have been put into question numerous times with more or less impact on co...

I'm not sure I can not follow you. Are you sure you answered the question? Your "intelligibility" for example either is something I could not care abo...

You are putting it to the point. You are different from the physical object observed, so... why should anyone assume you got something to do with it?

When showing that an "x" does not exist this does not extinct the letter. But this would be the case if the expression would be equal to the expressed...

Correct. But the symbol "a" just establishes an abstract identity. This is why you can know that I am talking about the same symbol when I now write, ...

Elaborate on that, please. I do not quite see where. If there is a determined something the law of identity applies.

How would you recognize a change in meaning if the term wasn't identical to itself? What is the difference between "a=2, b=3" and "a=2, a=3"? I for my...

Sure it is. It models that a mental object that was defined stays the same. A quantum particle, in contrast to it's definition, does not.

Expressing such a formalism in itself is: It'd be unclear what "those" refers to if the "terms" would not be the "terms", don't you think?

Do you mean that sentence to be taken as truth?

How so if "?x(x = x)" does not mean "?x(x = x)" but something else? You cannot make a statement which does not assert itself without... an extra-ordin...

This just is the difference between form and content. Say we have a system where t denotes a binary truth-predicate: t(x, true), t(x, false) This is c...

But this is just the point: My Thesis was that the set of meaningful statements made in a discussion is just the set of the terms for which identity h...

So it does not necessarily. Or how is this solved?

I know :) But the question you answered to was how we could meaningful discuss things without a=a-identity. I guess we cannot as the formulation of se...

The point where I can not follow this is: If you proof p(x) - does x have the property p() then? And was p(x) proven? You do not seem to get around th...

This makes the proposition that one is willing to understand the decisions made. One does not have to and hence: why should I? Just invest less in abs...