Iambiguous runs scared

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.

You still haven’t figured out the parts of me here that are basically tongue in cheek. But not to worry: neither have I. :wink:

I saw your notes only because I was never able not to have seen them. Anymore than you were ever able not to have written them.

Anymore than I was ever able not to point this out.

[size=50]Looks like we’re both off the hook again![/size]

Iambiguous,

There’s a very good reason I think the debate forums are the preferred method for us.

Which is why I didn’t respond directly to your links.

You have a way of ALWAYS avoiding content.

You are content to let the thread die, without responding to salient points, and this is how you “win” debates on this board.

As I stated earlier, the debate forums are cement, neither of us can wiggle out of it.

I assert that in such a format, that you will not be able to win as much as you assert or hold your own as much as you assert than you do in the dustheap of continually recycled posts.

Read above post as well.

The freewill argument from neuronal determinism argues that the only reason we can read thoughts (before they consciously occur) from brain scans, is that the mind consciously (to save energy and improve reaction time) moves certain decisions and information to the autonomic nervous system.

!

Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .

Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)

Let’s try this…

You and ecmandu commence an exchange here in which you focus the discussion on this:

My argument for objective morality that all rational and virtuous beings can agree upon is that no being want their consent to be violated without it being in their own terms.

You debate and discuss the relationship between pragmatism, consent violations and objective morality – as it is applicable to that which you both construe to be actual “content”.

Then after I get the hang of it, I’ll join in.

Note to others:

Let’s shame them into pursuing this, okay? :wink:

Iambiguous, the board cornered me on that phrase, so I just reverted to

“Nobody wants their consent violated”

I then debated with sillouette that recursion causes different meaning and context by using the truth table as an example.

Remember how I defined definition and proof?

Definition is how we describe self evident dilineations

Proof is when we use definition to prove that a self evident delineation can’t exist in any way (this proof through contradiction)

Again:

Take this analysis to KT. Choose a context. Choose particular interactions in which ones consent might be violated. In either a God or No God world. As this relates to the actual choices that one makes pertaining to value judgments evolving around conflicting goods.

Then get back to me.

You’re being disingenuous. I already did that.

I gave the abortion proof. It solves as pro choice.

I gave the political proof. It solves as liberal democracy with an educated populace

I gave the why existence exists instead of not existing proof

I have the freewill proof (it exists)

Debate me in the debate forums.

Not once have you quoted a single one of those proofs to discuss it.

Again: you ALWAYS avoid content!!! Salient content to your posts.

I worked my ass off to prove all 4 of those …

Not only are you trolling, now you’re just being an ass about it

Good point (epoche) onto argue from, and in my opinion inavoidable .

Here existential modes of brain functioning as relating to intentionality(intentional brain/mind function) is an interesting base of defining objectives.(neural differention-sympathetic/parasympathetic)

No point in going around the bush, nothing definitive comes out of this cat and mouse , or it devolved(es) below an existential hold, onto the realm of paradox.

Again, merely an observation from dead center, and I am also striving to keep afloat.

Reason: ? Those who can not learn from history are condemmed and consumed to and by repeating it.