Terrapin Station

So if Frank uses or defines the term differently, then the the meaning changes on those occasions?

Okay, and one question here (this is kind of the easiest question, so I'll start with it), is that the way the word is used in conversation or the def...

You just asked if other possibilities are available at the moment a decision is made. Again, that has nothing to do with determinism. Why not? Well, s...

Whether anyone is making a choice is irrelevant to what I was responding to as well as my response.

"Your thought" is simply another way of saying "it occurs of (or we could say 'in') you."

Right, so it's your thought.

Once something from the set of possibilities is actualized, then the other possibilities are no longer possible with respect to that particular actual...

The phenomenon in question is the thought, "I intend to do x" for example. So that's your thought?

So it's God's thought, not your own?

A problem with this answer is that earlier, when I wrote this: You didn't do the "Why would you say that" part. I tried just ignoring that you bypasse...

This part is the most important bit to start thinking about. Imagine that we had to write an account covering in detail exactly how this part works. I...

What is required for free will.

Isn't "will" simply the term for "I'm choosing a number," "I'm intending to do x," etc.? And if that phenomena, when it occurs, isn't of you, what is ...

What would you say is required other than (a) will, and (b) a lack of determinism in conjunction with will?

One thing that happens for people to arrive at ethical stances is that most people have empathy. They observe Joey hitting Eddie, and they have a gut-...

Okay thanks for the answer. Re the physical stuff, I'm a physicalist, obviously, so I think that everything is physical, including mental phenomena, i...

Basically, the idea, very broadly--I'm not specifying my views, here, is (presumably) that were talking about things that exist or obtain somehow, and...

I thought that the usual approach was that God knows everything there is to know, but that doesn't include freely willed choices that you'll make, sin...

So are you a skeptic that there's something going on ontologically? Or do you mean that you think there's something going on ontologically, but you ha...

You use y however you use it. Let's say there's no example where I'd use y in any different way. Then, I say, "I use x so that it's identical to y." Y...

Sure.

Okay, so you're just talking about whether x is part of a long causal chain or not. What would that have to do with being an "eterenal being"? Say tha...

Not in my view. But I answered it anyway. So how about not being a rude jerk?

If there's no example of you using "thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behavior" where I wouldn't use "feelings" then there's no reason to b...

I answered the apple question right? Didn't have anything to do with anything. But I answered, because you asked. If I ask you a question, answer it, ...

I don't care at the moment if it does or not. I asked you a question. If you're to not be a rude a-hole, you'll answer.

What's an example where you'd use "thought/belief about acceptable/unacceptable behavior" where I wouldn't use "feelings" (in this moral context)?

How about answering what I asked you now?

It is re the way I'm using "feelings" in this context. That's the whole point I've been making.

How much would you wager on this: We take 1,000 random people and tell them the first paragraph. They can't have knowledge of the test we're doing pri...

What are the definitions you're using of "originate," "ultimately originate," and "root cause"?

When we're talking about thought/belief in a moral context, we're talking about ways that people feel about behavior. This has nothing to do with appl...

I agree with that (that a prediction need not take if/then form). However, what you described was an if/then relation, and one that had nothing to do ...

Not in my usage.

You should if you want to know the physical properties of, say, a particular piece of pottery relative to a particular culture. Those are physical pro...

Yes, which, grammatical conventions aside, we could do in a context of talking about morality.

Do you think that archaeology deals with physical stuff? Do physicists know archaeology better than archaeologists? Does biology/medicine deal with ph...

Huh? That reads like gobbledygook to me. Again, huh? You'd have to explain all of this so it makes any sense. Let's start with this since it's already...

First, we're not talking about whether physicists, specifically, would work on this. But are you claiming that what's going on is somehow "beyond scie...

I believe that willful acts can only originate within us, and that this is the case whether free will is possible or whether determinism is true. When...

If there's only one possible world . . . Although we could still say that then we're talking about all possible worlds when we talk about the one. Det...

Again, the problem is that you're refraining from this "weird question." That's leading you to untenable ontological stances about it. Alright, so whe...

How does that happen physically? The fact that you won't analyze just what's going on ontologically is the problem here.

Judge claims and other work on their own merit. Don't judge them on unrelated factors. As pointed out above, that's the genetic fallacy.

Intuition is how you figure out what your preferences are.

I'm guessing because you're conflating possibility and actuality. Is it impossible for the person to know about pumpernickel/to know that it's availab...

The error you're making is that the only way to connect "boat" to the referent is to engage in the mental activity of associating the sound or text ma...

Isn't there pretty widespread agreement about, say, characteristics of Santa Claus or vampires? Or pretty widespread agreement about the Beatles being...

Re the way I use the terms, what makes something objective is that it occurs independently of us. Comparing, agreeing with others doesn't make somethi...

We can talk about language per se (a la utterances qua utterances, for example) or we can talk about what language is referring to, what it's about. "...