Total posts: 14,582
-->
@MAV99
In order to perceive the different grades of being, one must have the ability to understand them. The different grades of being give way to the strength of influences on a person. Intellectual understanding is the attribute of humans, the rational animal.
if the defining characteristic of "free-will" is the ability to cause things that are not determined by the universal law of cause-and-effect
then accumulating experience
and processing that accumulated experience in order to apply it in an effective and intelligent manner
is contrary to its defining characteristic
accumulating experience and processing data makes it subject to "previous events" which we commonly refer to as "causes"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
A person makes the choice! That point was not saying free will is the person!
if "free-will" is NOT "the person"
then the "free-will" you are describing cannot be
YOUR WILL
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Do you see a free will walking around without a person attached to it??!?!?!?!
no, i don't see it at all, anywhere
can you show it to me ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Mind you also, I have already said I do not agree with your definition of will.
what is your personally preferred definition of will ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
The determination to this particular action.
it sounds like you're suggesting your will is not subject to the universal law of cause-and-effect
Created:
-->
@MAV99
You are suggesting that. I am pointing out the absurdity in using the word "choosing" to describe your process of determination.
do you think it is fair to say that GPT4 decides or chooses which next word to generate ?
do you think it is fair to say that GOOGLE decides or chooses which links to list in response to your query and also decides or chooses the order of that list ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
We can know better the nature of something as studied by itself, which, later in turn, helps us to understand better its relation to another thing.
"as studied by itself" divorced from the material aspect ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
H.L. Mencken was a libertarian and a critic of democracy, organized religion, and populism.
He advocated for individualism and was skeptical of government intervention.
Created:
-->
@MAV99
you cannot use the word "choosing" to describe your process of the will determining
are you suggesting your will does not make decisions ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
He is was not free as regards him being sick. But he was free to choose how to responded to it.
they must always choose the option that is prefered in the moment of decision
Created:
-->
@MAV99
But he is free regarding his choice of responding to his influences.
i find it difficult to believe that someone could choose to be happy about something they personally find obviously tragic
Created:
-->
@MAV99
This free cause must also be intelligent
please explain
Created:
-->
@MAV99
so when the free will chooses it is the person choosing.
if the "free-will" is unconstrained by "self" also known as "identity" also known as "biology + experience"
then NO
the "free-will" is NOT "the person"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
When a cause that is not free causes it must cause what it is most inclined towards.
certainly
that's the function of will
it is goal-seeking
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Do we agree that free will is a cause and not an effect?
i'm not sure "free-will" even exists
and if something is logically-impossible
it follows
that it can never be considered "a cause"
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Why can't all three be options that you freely choose?
because none of these options are "free" because they are all constrained
when you say "free"
what exactly is your will "free" from ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
But if you actually make the effort to understand it, you don't need it.
what is the benefit you perceive is gained
by divorcing "form" from "matter" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Why would you ever cast your vote based on only one candidates record/promises? It's a comparison.
the frame here is the best possible POSITIVE case in favor of voting for joe biden
in the same way it is expected that a religion make a POSITIVE case for becoming a member
sure, they can make a NEGATIVE case, basically saying, "if you don't join our club, you will live a meaningless and random life and probably burn in hell after you die"
but simply claiming "the alternative is worse" does not automatically validate your proposed option
also, the claim "THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE" (TINA) is very rarely actually true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
RFK needed to win one of the primaries. He didn't try at the republican primary (he would have lost) and he was sabotaged by the democracy hating "democrats".
most americans will be able to vote for RFK if they dislike the other two "official" options
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I am simply forced into dichotomy of two choices because 3rd choice isnt available.
RFK wins by a lot in a one-on-one against joe biden
RFK wins by a little in a one-on-one against donald trump
Created:
Posted in:
the best possible case for the average american to cast their vote for joe biden
is to look at his record of accomplishments
not promises, because we all know that candidate promises mean absolutely nothing
(1) "the american rescue plan" - injected money into the economy
(2) "infrastructure investment and jobs act" - injected money into the economy
(3) "uyghur forced labor prevention act" - prevents some goods produced with slave labor from entering the united states
(5) biden directed the labor department to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are either vaccinated or tested once a week
(6) biden halted funding for the border wall
(7) biden reversed the muslim travel ban
(IFF) you believe these are pro-toto good government policies (THEN) you should cast your vote for joe biden
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Not to mention what you said does not follow logically.
please be slightly more specific
Created:
-->
@MAV99
What about having motives means one must be preferred over the other?
do you think it is fair to say that when you have a goal, this limits, this constrains your active options ?
and within the scope of the options (including non-action) each has apparent pros and cons ?
so, let's imagine you've narrowed down the selection to two distinct options that seem roughly equivalent
do you go with your "gut-instinct" (intuitive biology + subconscious experience) ?
or do you have conscious intentional REASONS for selecting one action over the other ?
OR
do you select essentially AT RANDOM ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
But with understanding you can only reason about it. That is a way to understand it better.
you can imagine a POSITIVE form (comprised of matter)
you can imagine a NEGATIVE form (surrounded by matter)
both require matter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
you forgot abortion and climate change
no concrete action has been taken by joe biden on either one of those promises
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Build a steelman for biden.
the best possible case for the average american to cast their vote for joe biden
is to look at his record of accomplishments
not promises, because we all know that candidate promises mean absolutely nothing
(1) "the american rescue plan" - injected money into the economy
(2) "infrastructure investment and jobs act" - injected money into the economy
(3) "uyghur forced labor prevention act" - prevents some goods produced with slave labor from entering the united states
(5) biden directed the labor department to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are either vaccinated or tested once a week
(6) biden halted funding for the border wall
(7) biden reversed the muslim travel ban
(IFF) you believe these are pro-toto good government policies (THEN) you should cast your vote for joe biden
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Still, steelman is probably the best if person wants to become a good debater.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
I said they were inseperable in reality.
it seems we are in agreement on this particular point
are you suggesting it is possible to imagine form without matter ?
Created:
-->
@MAV99
Why MUST you?
one option must always be prefered
otherwise
you could never choose one
the only alternative would be to presume you RANDOMLY select between available options
and a RANDOM decision can never be an act of WILL
Created:
Posted in:
a steel-man argument is the practice of presenting the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument
even stronger than they may have presented it themselves, to engage in a more robust and fair debate
present your best arguments
and i will build you a fully customized steel-man
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
can an object exist without form ?No.
form and matter are inseparable
you cannot understand one without understanding the other
and understanding of either is understanding of both
Created:
-->
@MAV99
There are always more than one goal. So yes, it can choose freely.
there is always a hierarchy of choices
and you must always choose the one you think is the best at that juncture
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
can an object exist without form ?No.
EXACTLY
Created:
-->
@MAV99
I said it was still free to choose regardless of them.
it is impossible to choose something freely
if your will is goal seeking
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ok, but it requires a login account to access. And that is merely a single example. As I said earlier, I also know of a single example.
sorry about that, you used to be able to read everything without a logon
i guess maybe they changed it recently to dodge all the gpt bots
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Your glaring contradiction aside, what you appear to advocate isn’t so much a “debate” (implying win/lose or tie) as a dialectic (implying win/win or lose/lose), which would… be great! True dialectics are precious few though (sort of like good debates here, as I said earlier)…
everything is a negotiation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Tell me: is that place… better than here? I surely hope so!
it's definitely worth the zero dollar membership fee
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ok, and that sounds good and all; I truly like the spirit of it… but I neglected to ask you this at the time:
within the debate
i am able to convince type1 of the proper framing of the question (noumenon + quanta + qualia)
there are many points within the debate
where we find agreement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Lastly, I was actually asking for an example of where an opponent was actually convinced, which I have contended all along constitutes a rarity, and you have been taking exception to it… with insufficient evidence thus far.
this is a very long conversation about whether or not we should try and stop killing civilians
my interlocutor finally agreed with me after i posted a clip from a bernie sanders speech
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Yet Type1 won that debate even after failing to convince you. How confusing! I take it, then, that your above framework is not exactly the case?
i was referencing the second scenario
"and it is possible for both sides to win (both sides learn something valuable)"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
i heard a story told by a high ranking government official about how they "destroyed" one of their detractors in an important meeting
and later, when they bragged about it to their son
the son asked them, "did you convince them you were right ?"
and that's when they realized that simply embarrassing people is far less valuable than actually winning them over to your view
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So in conclusion, Type1 succeeded in convincing you that science IS objective?
not exactly,
CON says, (cr2.6) "They apply to reality itself (noumenon) and thus to quanta as well (how noumenon behaves physically).Qualia is the only thing that can be considered not real, as it is the realm of what is imagined or felt and is only a reflection of processes occurring in the realm of quanta."
PRO says, (pr3.6) I'm not convinced the term "fact" can apply to noumenon. Furthermore I am unable to detect any direct or indirect relationship between noumenon and quanta. I agree with you that qualia is 99% imaginary, I also believe that quanta is (axiomatically) 100% real.
PRO's round 3 closing statement:
This has been a phenomenal debate. I would like to thank CON for their focused and well reasoned arguments, fine attention to detail and obvious rhetorical skill.
I would also like to make a note that in the event of a tie on points, I would like to award one additional point to CON (as a tie-breaker) in appreciation their outstanding performance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Do you have some examples of wins to show?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
great news everyone
the fact that many grocery store items have nearly doubled in price
and your paycheck remains unchanged since 2019
means the economy is doing fantastic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Do you have some examples of wins to show?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, I see. Well, I have seen far, far more (around 99+%) of the former than the latter.
that's why developing skill is required
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So, as long as one refuses to be convinced, one can always win.
well, it's easy for both sides to lose (both sides remain unconvinced)
and it is possible for both sides to win (both sides learn something valuable)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I’ve actually only witnessed that once, and it was over a pretty obscure and esoteric subject. More realistically, I think the best metric for winning is who persuaded the bigger percentage of the audience. Intelligence Squared uses this standard, and I think it’s great.
persuading an audience is an entertaining metric, but it does tend to favor ad hominem attacks
i try to relate debate skill to real-life one-on-one communication
if you fail to convince the person you disagree with
your argument has failed and you have lost the debate
Created: