Iambiguous runs scared

Again, utterly oblivious to the points that I actually make.

And as though responding to them only counts if we take them to the “debate forum”.

Look, I gave him a chance to actually respond substantively to these points before. He keeps wiggling out of it.

Others can take him seriously if they wish. For me, it’s just entertainment. Something to do to pass the time before the part about oblivion. Which, by the way, I don’t give my consent to at all.

Let’s see if that makes a difference. :wink:

No, you’re projecting onto me about wiggling out of it… once it’s in the debate forums it’s cement, you can’t keep letting threads die, refuse to respond to the ones that are there and keep trolling as always

My best guess: It’s beyond his control.

Either because of how his brain is wired or because we really do live in a wholly determined universe.

Letting us both off the hook. :laughing:

Again, he’ll either respond to the points I make here or cling to the hope that I don’t actually take this to the “chamber of debate” forum.

But: could I ever be that cruel?! :wink:

Iambiguous, you don’t respond to ANYONE in normal threads. Reality check.

I’m not a fool anymore about you.

Debate forums are cement. You can’t wiggle out of it.

Neither can I

nice, a new cockier iambiguous. It’s be cruel for you to debate him since you’d kick his ass so bad. STrutting. Cool.

I think you are misreading him, though. I am pretty sure he wants to actually debate you.

Sorry if I am taking the pre-fight banter literally.

I like the confidence in iambiguous, but if those three links are all he has, I’m not worried…

I’m still to young to prove freewill all the way though, but even as a stretch, I could probably pull that one off as well.

Meno, what do these last two posts mean?
Have you reported his post?
What does quoting yourself in the second post mean?

Anyway the problem with a debate is such that:

I’d be watchful though, for Dasein, Das-Ein, is extremely reducible, into the very depths of the cave , where there is only a transcendental solution, worth a try, as how a subjectively based(a-priori) and an objectively based (a-posterior) proof can somehow minimally allign to formative opinion.

Nothing, just tinkering with quotes.

I’ll give you the freewill idea as I understand it.

Unless a person is made aware of deterministic systems, they can be manipulated as having no freewill.

The moment they are made aware of those deterministic systems, they now have freewill.

A being made aware of all deterministic systems (which are finite - and I can prove that) has absolute freewill.

In saying this, just like peacegirl is arguing in other threads, we have no choice but to move to greater satisfaction … but that’s not really saying much as well.

For all beings to have freewill, there are limitations.

I say as an anology, in order for me to have the freewill of smoking with my hands while walking, I must have a cigarette, something that lights it, and decent mobility.

With freewill always comes restrictions .

I partially agree, except that even aware people can be manipulated, in deprogramming and with the use of drastic methods of painful conditioning.

Ahh … partially true. People will say anything to get out of torture (so who’s manipulating who here), but once it stops, they just revert.

If no free will then why be conscious at all. One can choose to smoke a cigarette, free will doesn’t imply without work or extra effort, it implies a freedom of available options through thought of which may be manifested through a point of understanding.

You know, we could be just like the other animals, subconscious/unconscious and merely instinctive without any choice or understanding of choice and what it entails.

Excepting mind washing techniques techniques so perfected , as to retain the consciousness and even to be able to differ that from unconsciousness , yet unable to be free to act freely.

Mind washing does not equate necessarily with loss of conscious memory.

Meno,

Even assuming that, teaching someone proof structure can reset the operating system, it’s like anti virus for the mind.

Confidence? How on earth can I feel confident given that my entire argument here is predicated on the assumption that my entire argument here is just another existential contraption? Like, for example, yours.

I’m just curious as to how seriously you take yourself given that any number of the points you raise seem to have originated in the outer limits of twilight zone.

You know, in my own opinion.

It’s strictly a cat and mouse thing here for me.

But, sure, there is still a part of me that wonders if the points I raised above are open to legitimate criticisms. After all, what have I really got to lose? And think of all I’ve got to gain if somehow [with the help of others] I do figure out a way to yank myself up out of this hole?

Or maybe even come to believe in some rendition of the afterlife on the other side of the grave.

As for this…

In my view, no one in their right mind would seriously consider debating someone who says things like this. Besides, I’m nowhere near close to being in my own right mind.

Here and now in particular. :wink:

Iambiguous, you saw my notes on freewill, and instead of engaging them,you engaged a qualification about them.

My notes on freewill are pretty robust as they sit.

In sensing this, as usual, you avoid content.