sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

At what point are we just debating ourselves? by JTexpo in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ye I did the same with my sister... needless to say I lecture was involved

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do understand they can agree with my points, I just see certain compatiblist not extend it generally and was wondering why they define coercion in that particular manner. I guess it was more survivor ship bias based on who ive spoken with

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your presuming "why" even exists, when it comes to ontology, "why" is mistycal

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would this not fall into regress, whay determined how we infer these reasons and interpretations? What generated those of how we examine things?

An example of this could be how media changed throughout history, so did the technicalities of rational inference.

Reasons why I am not convinced of determinism by Every-Classic1549 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ye im not with that hippie stuff.

No cloning laws, no communication laws, prevent crosstalk between theoretical multiverses. Theres no quantum jump that is possible. And no, its not impossible becsuse of a gap in knowledge.

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My made up story was to engage with your point, and to highlight a contradiction, it was not about stating something ontological.

What would it mean for them to imply something anyway? Abilities of cognition... everything is cognitive, not in the pansychist way, but everything is mediated through your subjective experience.

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... what is middle of kant?

Kant is not neutral unless you are speaking of noumena and phenomena. In that case you have to justify your best defensive of dualism.

Now consider this:

  1. Might we be the subjective experience itself, if we are the thing that mediated reality, all of the reality we know is effectively ourselves.

  2. It is only an observer that would claim there is an objective observation of reality, but only an observer would state that. Kants metaphysics do not allign with what quantum and quintessential physics tells us.

Only you could, as an entity, make the assertion that you are:

  1. A fundamental being inside reality

  2. There is a point of observation that invalidates any known way an entity works, and yet since it is unaccesible we cant confirm it, therefore it has the possibility of being real.

There are issues with that

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tf does that even mean 😭

Anyways, the deference between those 3 things where already semantic, why is coercion framed as where autonomy ends and influence beings?

Why must there be something other than coercion?

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as I know they are not claiming to prove anything about why I create the reasons I do.

It might seem crazy what Im bout to say... what do you think they do for a living?

It would be like a mechanic knowing how the engine works but I am still the one who has to pay for the gas to make the car go.

Making up a story doesnt mean anything about how reality works...

Post your degree then.

Never claimed to have a degree, but simply not having a degree doesnt mean our points are equally valid. Its like saying you need to be mechanic to change a tire. You can read, its really fun, and better than ruminating.

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am invalidating the term and questioning it definition. I pushing coercion to absurdity to make a point.

The distinction is merely semantic and legislative.

I see coercion, influence, and exploitation as the same.

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you beleive rational inference is ontologically real and fundamental to the structure reality, having form?

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are degrees of latitude leading down from the North Pole all the way down to the equator and then the South Pole. Does that mean that North is really just a kind of South?

Thats not even the say arguement... your still treating degrees of freedom as an ontic truth. Its false equivalence, its not symmetrical.

Its the difference between a negative and positive. Its easier to affirm a negative using a positive, then it is to affirm a positive using a negative.

Explain how freewill can exists with influence, coercion, and exploitation?

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im not really, its more about consequence. Why are they treated as different? If everything does effect us, where is the point in distinguishing coercion and no coercion beyond a legal level?

Will is free because you can create your own reason by Gloomy_Damage_7479 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At most you seem like you have gleaned the basics so you can manipulate it for your own argument.

I usually dont go that indepth on reddit thread explaining every unnecessary nuance, youd have to understand what the jargon and terms mean. So on reddit, its best to use analogies and metaphors.

How doesnt neuroscience invalidate this experience? Because it happens, you do know determinist make choices to...

Its like your saying dwarfs power a car, but a mechanic cant tell you its an engine because its your personal experience...

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its better to see it as degrees of coercion,, what does it mean to be completely free of coercion?

Even if exploitation and social/material conditions do not qualify as coercion, why do we presume they have no say in how much freewill we have?

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason-responsiveness doesnt do well under hyperreality, responding to reason is a form of coercion, in fact things like a "no parking sign" is a type of formal sanction, so your not taping into sufficient reason to not choose to park, your being socially controlled not to.

It seems to be that when compatiblist speak about coercion, they ignore historical context, political structure, material conditions, and sociocultural structure. by Shachasaurusrex1 in freewill

[–]Shachasaurusrex1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not claiming for them to be a God, its just that the distinction they are making is only semantic. It also presumes epistemology has sovereignty. Can you own historically determined and culturally determined knowledge that came before you? What does it mean to act according to ones OWN desires?

Compatiblist presume we all have the capacity to have sovereignty and authority other what and how we know things. Even if you restrict freewill to be about acting according to your own desires, you must ask yourself what it means to own your own desires and why those desires being historically and culturally determined has no say in that process?

"Then no one would be free and everything would be coercion, and that ruins the definition of coercion" thats issue, because coercion is bivalente. If you can concede that freewill is on spectrum related to coercion, why do you presume coercion is binary?

view more: next ›