Poll: Definitions of Free Wiil

[Speakpigeon]

I see why I usually choose to ignore your posts.
EB

Thanks for your comment. I have no interest in what you do. Your snide conceit and arrogance toward others who you happen to disagree with is clearly displayed in your posts. Reeks of it. Good riddance.

Not at all. You're one of only a very small number of people I normally ignore even though I disagree one way or another with most people here. So it's not at all "snide conceit and arrogance toward others", but a perfectly sensible reaction motivated specifically by what you say and how you say it.
EB

 

[DBT]

I see why I usually choose to ignore your posts.
EB

Thanks for your comment. I have no interest in what you do. Your snide conceit and arrogance toward others who you happen to disagree with is clearly displayed in your posts. Reeks of it. Good riddance.

Not at all. You're one of only a very small number of people I normally ignore even though I disagree one way or another with most people here. So it's not at all "snide conceit and arrogance toward others", but a perfectly sensible reaction motivated specifically by what you say and how you say it.
EB

Perfectly sensible for someone who is conceited and arrogant, but not to anyone who is consistently reasonable and willing to ask for clarification on any point if they don't understand what the other person is trying to convey. You are blind to your conceit. You act The Man, assuming by default that you have the high ground and those that you deem to be ''vacuous'' are beneath you, so are treated contemptuous remarks.

If there is something to actually query, you should just ask for clarification of the point in question.

If you want to ignore someone, which is reasonable, you should just ignore them instead of trumpeting your displeasure and your opinion publicly...that being an example of your conceit.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Perfectly sensible for someone who is conceited and arrogant, but not to anyone who is consistently reasonable and willing to ask for clarification on any point if they don't understand what the other person is trying to convey. You are blind to your conceit. You act The Man, assuming by default that you have the high ground and those that you deem to be ''vacuous'' are beneath you, so are treated contemptuous remarks.

If there is something to actually query, you should just ask for clarification of the point in question.

If you had paid attention, you'd have seen that's what I just did. I asked you to clarify your assertion that free will was "irrelevant". I had to repeat my request several times. And the only result I got in the end is that it appeared that your assertion was itself irrelevant to this thread. You're just a waste of time.

If you want to ignore someone, which is reasonable, you should just ignore them instead of trumpeting your displeasure and your opinion publicly...that being an example of your conceit.

Conceit is about one's opinion about oneself. I only expressed my opinion about your posts. And this is routine practice on this forum, often using a more caustic language than I do.
EB

 

[DBT]

Perfectly sensible for someone who is conceited and arrogant, but not to anyone who is consistently reasonable and willing to ask for clarification on any point if they don't understand what the other person is trying to convey. You are blind to your conceit. You act The Man, assuming by default that you have the high ground and those that you deem to be ''vacuous'' are beneath you, so are treated contemptuous remarks.

If there is something to actually query, you should just ask for clarification of the point in question.

If you had paid attention, you'd have seen that's what I just did. I asked you to clarify your assertion that free will was "irrelevant". I had to repeat my request several times. And the only result I got in the end is that it appeared that your assertion was itself irrelevant to this thread. You're just a waste of time.

If you were paying attention you'd understand that my replies have been in response to your singular remark - ''I see why I usually choose to ignore your posts. EB'' - Post #39 - which is not question for clarification, nor any sort of reasonable inquiry. It is a conceited remark. A remark designed to dismiss your opponent, me in this instance, and others in various threads, fromderinside, etc - without actually addressing what was said.

Conceit is about one's opinion about oneself. I only expressed my opinion about your posts. And this is routine practice on this forum, often using a more caustic language than I do.
EB

And I in turn pointed out the conceited nature of your dismissal of opponents/posters, (one example given) regardless of whether this is routine practice on this forum, or not.

 

[fromderinside]

Therefore free will is nothing more than reconstruction of recent events into an order meaningful to the one reconstructing. The order is mostly intended as fostering a ongoing scenario of one constructively existing within one's social circle or environment. It is important for peers to see one as no threat or wave maker with respect to their survival or freedom of doing.

It's definitely better English but still not something I can interpret in the context of free will. I'd be impressed if anybody could.

I suppose I understand the general idea that human beings may be making up just-so stories to perhaps provide a structuring frame to their experience. But if true that idea probably would apply just as well to anything we do beside our belief in free will. And if you were yourself serious about this idea, you should also believe that it applies to whatever you come to think and whatever you happen to be doing. To everything human beings do. Including your commenting here. Basically, your idea seems to deny any meaningfulness to our existence.

I don't believe in your theory so I'm not impacted. But, it is problematic for you. First, you insistance at commenting on this forum shows you can't quite live up to your nice little theory.

Second, you should regard even this theory as just another meaningless just-so story you've just made up. Which can only be an absurd position to be in.
EB

What I'm not quite getting here is why you refuse to read my text with an open mind. Are you trying to demonstrate how a machine would process text without a memory of recent events or even recent context of recent events?

Or are you just trying to keep your rhetorical thumb on me for some reason. Maybe if you do keep the thumb down I'll stop posting?

Or are you trying to incite? Surely your purpose cannot be to further discussion since you trash my input out of hand.

Setting aside my recent stuff, actually much of my stuff as you do - I am a reasonable observer after all - one comes to ask why do you fail to address any bit of my obvious theme "there is no free will". Surely most see my writing as argument whatever free will one might consider is socially motivated. That is one reconstructs events into an argument. Surely that is not an exhibit for free will, even to you.

I shant presume you are so dense you can't leverage off my comments to clarifications of your views, even an argument for your views. So why don't you take the obvious opportunity and do so? The dimensions of your topic would proceed much more rapidly if you did so.

As it stands now we are talking past each other by saying we are talkng past each other.

I'll repeat my view. Humans are material beings which operate according to determinist constraints, There is no free will mechanism available. There are not even quantum hooks for such, as others notably bilby concisely point out. Any discussion of some local free will, something one might consider if one actually wanted to understand human claims for free will, must work within a specific context. I choose that context to be social and the mode for it to be articulation. I've expressed why I chose that approach many times in the context of evolutionary fitness.

Thanks for spending thetime to at least glance .