|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Who do I start at QB? | |||
| T. Romo Vs. Ind |
   
|
2 | 25.00% |
| M. Bulger @ Stl |
  
|
6 | 75.00% |
| Voters: 8. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#3
11-11-2007, 11:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Freewill
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.
In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism. 
|
|
#4
11-11-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill
[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C. In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism. [/ QUOTE ] take yourself less seriously?
|
|
#5
11-11-2007, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill
Um, what level are you on? I don't get it.
It's just clearer to write "I define" than "Some people define". Sorry if that offended your delicate sensibilities. Do you have any comments on the actual topic?
|
|
#8
11-12-2007, 12:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill
There is no free will. The future already exists. At the root of everything are tiny mathematical formula/number series. However, there might be branching timeline/universes, in which case you get the illusion of freewill. If that's true, then you if you have to choose between A and B, you'll choose both, 1 in each branching timeline.
|
|
#9
11-11-2007, 06:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C. In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism. [/ QUOTE ] take yourself less seriously? [/ QUOTE ] Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use. This is in no way a slur or attack on you, more a compliment i suppose, but this is not the first post you have made that has left me thinking 'WTF?' As I have already said, this highlights my lack of vocabulary, and is not supposed to be negative towards you in any way. I just thought it might help you to understand the reply you recieved.
|
|
#10
11-11-2007, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freewill
[ QUOTE ]
Subfallen, to some of us lesser mortals, it is difficult to understand what you are saying at times due to the language you use. [/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Part of the problem may be that I haven't read anything but philosophy for 3-4 months now. Here's a sample from what I'm reading at the moment, Heidegger's Being and Time (Macquarrie & Robinson translation): [ QUOTE ] Primordially 'truth' means the same as 'being-disclosive', as a way in which Dasein behaves. From this comes the derivative signification: 'the uncoveredness of entities'. Correspondingly, 'certainty', in its primordial signification, is tantamount to 'Being-certain', as a kind of Being which belongs to Dasein. However, in a derivative signification, any entity of which Dasein can be certain will also get called something 'certain'. [/ QUOTE ] And that's an unusually concrete analysis for Heidegger. On the average he stays more abstract, along the lines of: [ QUOTE ] The character of understanding as projection is constitutive for Being-in-the-world with regard to the disclosedness of its existentially constitutive state-of-Being by which the factical potentiality-for-Being gets its leeway. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
