litewave

Free will is about control. If you don't have control over your action then the action is not freely willed.

The problem is that I don't understand how you can control the intentional action if your intention doesn't influence it. The intention on your view s...

I don't necessarily mean complete control of the action, but the ability to influence the action.

So give an example of an action that you control without having an intention to do it.

I agree but it is so because you don't have an intention to do it. If you do an action without an intention to do it, it is as if the action or event ...

If the intention causes the action instantaneously via some different/timeless way of causation, we can still ask whether the act of forming the inten...

Simply doing an action is not enough to intentionally control it. You may simply slip on a banana peel, and it is you who is doing the slipping, but w...

Free will entails having control over your acts, which seems to be missing when your acts are unintentional. Like, slipping on a banana peel - an unin...

The idea of moral responsibility must involve feelings, or else no one would care about it (to care means to have feelings) and it seems to me those f...

You mean a choice such as the choice of a robot to move to the left rather than to the right because it is programmed to move to the left?

I think the feeling of moral responsibility arises from compassion, which is another feeling. Compatibilist freedom allows that. Praise and blame can ...

& I suppose this means that the intention does not influence the intentional act and thus denies point 1 of my argument? If an intention does not prec...

I can believe in the compatibilist notion of freedom - I am free when I can do what I want. What other freedom can we have?

Pleasure doesn't have to be carnal. It can also be gained from the worship of God. In general, it is simply "pleasant feelings".

But an abstract four sided triangle is defined only in such a context.

Doesn't 'stand apart' mean 'being different from others'? That's part of my definition of existence.

I guess they mean the same thing.

Pleasure/happiness.

I agree. I just thought that your ontology was limited to facts but now it seems that it also contains other existent objects. No, I advocate the exis...

But if there are relations between objects then there must also be the objects. So it seems to me that the objects that constitute the content of fact...

I know next to nothing about these probability calculations but apparently physicists consider various possible scenarios that a universe could be, su...

And facts are related to other objects, at least, obviously, to those objects that constitute the content of the facts. You may take an arbitrary fact...

I defined existence as logical consistency (possibility), which I summed up as "being identical to oneself and different from others". This means that...

Every object, including facts, exists in relations to all other objects, even in objective reality. For example, a fact exists in relations to the obj...

You said that there are certain facts. Isn't it the same as saying that there exist certain facts?

Yes. Yes.

I would say that to exist as an abstract object means to have instances/examples, to which the abstract object is related through the relation of inst...

In my view everything exists timelessly, as logical necessities. But among these things are certain arrangements/orders that we experience as temporal...

Or you could say that they exist as abstract objects. They satisfy the identity condition for existence: they are identical to themselves and differen...

I think this statement is inconsistent, because it needs a logic that generates also other facts. For example, it uses relations of abstraction (insta...

A logically impossible situation is not even a situation. It is nothing. Contradictory descriptions describe nothing.

That's what makes the situation impossible and therefore such a situation cannot exist. I just wrote a collection of words on the screen that refers t...

But 1&2 contradict each other in any situation.

It can't exist anywhere, not just in our universe. Your word "concept" seems key here. When you imagine a circle that is not a circle, in your imagina...

Well, I have made an argument that if there were absolutely nothing (absence of everything) then there would be the fact that there is absolutely noth...

A triangular circle is a circle that is not a circle, so a circle and a non-circle are the same thing: there is no difference between a circle and a n...

So you cannot. Because if there is no difference between a circle and a non-circle then there is no difference between imagining and not imagining.

You can imagine a circle that is not a circle? If you abandon the principle of non-contradiction, then you cannot imagine what you can imagine.

An inconsistent proposition is not true in any part of reality, but that means that it is a property that is not instantiated in any part of reality -...

A statement (proposition) can be viewed as a complex property with a subject-predicate structure and even with logical connectives such as "if-then". ...

Platonism. Sort of fits metaphysically, because it seems to me that abstract objects are parts of objective reality but I don't think they are more "r...

Well, that's the point - it doesn't make sense to say that the world isn't like logic, because that would mean that the world is not what it is. If th...

If Tao is what it is then it is logical. Yes, if reality is what it is then logic (consistency) is its fundamental basis. I can't see how reality coul...

To claim that the world is illogical is to claim that the world is not what it is. Therefore, the world is not illogical. The claim refutes itself.

If the world isn't like logic then the world is like logic. That's what you get from absence of logic. To argue against logic is self-defeating.

The Copenhagen interpretation is less parsimonious than the many worlds interpretation because Copenhagen introduces an arbitrary assumption of a wave...

Well, isn't that sort of like the yin-yang duality that is supposed to be the manifestation of Tao? :) The first quote was an intuitive/holistic chara...

I don't know enough about Wittgenstein to comment on him, but my view is far larger than logical positivism. Logical positivism limits reality to that...

But existence is not the individual things but rather the universal property that they all have in common. As such, existence can be said to be "invis...

The way you spoke about Tao suggests that Tao could be identified with existence, the property of all things. In my view, existence is simply logical ...