RegularGuy

<—what he said

You’re a fucking riot! Never a dull moment when you’re around!

Doesn’t free will just mean to a Compatibilist that the actor isn’t being coerced by anyone? So they are morally responsible as long as they are not b...

I see what you’re saying.

Wasn't Strawson saying that we are not ultimately responsible for our actions? This seems to be a radical claim, and it has huge implications for huma...

Excellent analysis of bullshit. That was some fine bullshit on bullshit.

To the moderators/administrators: This thread belongs under "General Philosophy". Harry G. Frankfurt wrote a book entitled "On Bullshit", and this OP ...

You could say this with almost any "problem" of philosophy. That's why the average person couldn't care less about philosophy.

I've decided to stick around. I simply have nothing better to do. ;)

I have a question. Have these experiments been replicated with the same results? It seems they would have to be replicated a few times with the same r...

You’re correct! However, it has no bearing on my overall argument. Thanks. God bless you!

At any rate, I wish you the best of luck with your book on free will. I give up on this pissing match. God bless you.

if A is a necessary cause of B, then B could not happen without A. If A is also a sufficient cause of B, then A is also not possible without B. How do...

Responsibility is a social convention simply because people believe in free will, not because it is metaphysically true.

My claim is that mental phenomena supervene on the physical brain. Some difference in the brain is necessary for a change in the mental processes. Als...

I do not believe that mental phenomena cause changes in the brain as you do. If mental phenomena were causally efficacious, then wouldn’t it be possib...

We are only morally responsible as a matter of convention. Metaphysically we are not responsible.

It seems that we are at an impasse. Not all correlated events supervene on each other. I suggest reading the Wikipedia entry on supervenience. It spea...

If you weren’t already aware “A if and only if B” means “If A then B AND if B then A”. Dfpolis’ definition wasn’t clear on this.

There are A differences if and only if there are B differences. It goes both ways. Just Google “supervenience”. “If and only if” doesn’t just mean “if...

To my estimation, “choices” are the domain of the privileged. Most people do what they do all day out of necessity. When people do the mental exercise...

The drunk driver may have been compelled, but punishment is still necessary to keep dangerous people off the streets and for deterrence.

I wasn't implying anything like "optimizing". I believe the alternative of stopping drinking occurred to the alcoholic as an option. Perhaps moderatio...

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I need to study what you wrote and think about it for awhile. God bless you.

I don't know about this. It seems to be only natural, not coincidental, to me. I'm sure that many who died in the Holocaust had doubts about a provide...

But this choice is not made in a vacuum. The alcoholic might have learned that he was being "punished" for consuming too much alcohol in the sense tha...

How does one make a “random choice” in practice?

Ah. My bad.

What do you mean by “those things do not work as counterarguments” when I am saying that they are indeed not ontologically free.

I’m still not SURE I agree that a long-term goal is a sign of free will. It is still a choice but a choice that constantly and repeatedly has to be ma...

So having a goal is a sign of free will? That’s interesting and something I hadn’t thought before. I will have to give it more thought. Thanks.

You speak English very well! I will have to put Kant on my to-do list.

Anyway, thanks for reading and for your thoughts. I really should learn some Kant.

Wow, you really said a lot in a small space! I don’t adhere to reductionism anymore but prefer supervenience. Is that closer to Kant’s thinking? Perha...

yeah. oops.

and consistent and coherent with scientific observation. It's mathematical models have very accurate predictive power.

It's consistent and coherent at least.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Anglo-American analytic philosophy's handling of ontology is lacking in how things seem or feel in a way that continental phil...

the geometric-fractal structure of spacetime, the component parts of the human brain and their respective functions...these are all evidence.

What I mean is, you seem to be a fan of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Phenomenology and the corresponding ontology are continental philosophies ...

Ontology and phenomenology rarely dealt with critical thinking in the Anglo-American analytic sense.

Spirituality has nothing to do with critical thinking. There are no good rational arguments for being spiritual. One has to feel it.

Okay. Don't buy it then.

In religious texts, these virtues must be cultivated to attain Truth (with a capital "T"). Look, you don't have to like it. You don't have to read it....

They are an argument for determinism. How do they not address your comment?

"love, peace, joy, empathy, understanding, and patience" You don't have to be spiritual to believe that these are virtues.

I refer you to my last few posts on the thread, "Fallacies of Strawson's Argument vs. Free will".

Well, you are entitled to that opinion, but the virtues listed above are good for atheists, too.

I probably shouldn't speak for Nasir, but I'll give my interpretation: Truth with a capital "T" is different from "truth". Truth is the ultimate goal ...

I have no idea either. Maybe my journey will end up being a blessing. God willing.