There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[bilby]

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

I find your inability to make any coherent argument on any topic a defining feature.

And here I was thinking I was being clever enough in mocking you with a double entendre Star Wars reference. Everybody's a critic!

It's an interesting cognitive trap; Once a person has convinced themselves that any argument they do not agree with is incoherent and therefore can be disregarded, it becomes impossible for them to learn anything new.

 

[fast]

Funny thing is it ceases to be an illusion when you realize that it's an illusion.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I think maybe he means it ceases to be illusory when you realize that it's an illusion.

 

[fromderinside]

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

 

[untermensche]

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing.

I find your inability to make any coherent argument on any topic a defining feature.

Your amazing analytic capabilities, combined with your devotion to speaking the truth, have led to no less than 7897 sarcastic comments about your intelligence and veracity.

If people can make concise and coherent arguments in response to any of my arguments I will address them.

I address nonsense like this with what it is worth.

Instead of looking only at my responses you should take a look at what I am responding to.

Show me where I answer a serious argument with comments about me.

I assume my intelligence is not very different from anybodies.

What is different is my experience and my arguments.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

- - - Updated - - -

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

 

[Kharakov]

Your amazing analytic capabilities, combined with your devotion to speaking the truth, have led to no less than 7897 sarcastic comments about your intelligence and veracity.

If people can make concise and coherent arguments in response to any of my arguments I will address them.

Is your intention to wait an infinite amount of time before you do?

What is different is my experience and my arguments.

I think it's what you call an argument.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

There isn't.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

There isn't.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

It doesn't. But if there is other consciousness, you're going to have a problem when it rises to power and recreates the one that abandoned it with instructions to recreate you in a blissful state.

 

[DBT]

What you actually know to exist is your own subjective experience. That's it. And it's the only bit that's beyond the shadow of a doubt. The brain is something you have to believe that it exists, and therefore, maybe, it doesn't exist at all as such. So, it is at least reasonable to conceive that there's another explanation than the existence of something like "a brain". What we understand as brains may just be our naive representation of whatever there is in fact instead of brains.

That being said, I have no idea to offer as to how we could get to whatever there really is instead of brains. So, basically, I'm satisfied to trust scientists to eventually get the best answer that can be got.
EB

Ah, yes, subjective experience, but a whole class of our subjective experience is subject to testing on a daily basis whenever we interact with the external world, a world that is objective, a world that does not accommodate flawed perception/subjective representation of its objects and events as we go about our daily lives.

Sure, but the way tests are carried out is inevitably objective so what is really tested is the brain, not our subjective experience. It's not reality which is objective, it's our everyday and scientific descriptions of it which are objective. And the only reality we know is subjective and there's no possible flaw in knowledge. Our objective descriptions are still putative and the only ones that are possibly flawed.

And of course, humans have successfully gone about their daily lives well before we had anything like a scientific model of the world. Indeed, most living things have managed well enough for billions of years without even a mind to rely on.
EB

The external world is objective because it is what it is and remains so regardless of our beliefs and classifications. The tree is an obstacle to negotiate for humans and worms alike, mind or no mind an animal cannot proceed as if the tree is not there....that being how our subjective representation of the external world, mind, is being tested against a reality that cares not for flawed perceptions and beliefs.

 

[DBT]

But that has nothing to do with 'will'

I suppose at this point, I've got to ask... what do you consider "will"?

The desire/prompt or urge to think, deliberate and act. Conscious will is formed in response to stimuli...a problem arises, a need, a desire or a fear, which is thought about and acted upon. Stimuli always comes first, unconscious, then propagated/nerve impulses, processed/neural networks and responded to, motor action, both in conscious and unconscious forms. All being brain activity, including conscious experience.

 

[fromderinside]

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

-nm

 

[untermensche]

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

-nm

No shit!

You have no answer to this.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

There isn't.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

There isn't.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

It doesn't. But if there is other consciousness, you're going to have a problem when it rises to power and recreates the one that abandoned it with instructions to recreate you in a blissful state.

So you totally agree with my position here?

What exactly is your problem?

 

[bilby]

Your amazing analytic capabilities, combined with your devotion to speaking the truth, have led to no less than 7897 sarcastic comments about your intelligence and veracity.

If people can make concise and coherent arguments in response to any of my arguments I will address them.

I address nonsense like this with what it is worth.

Instead of looking only at my responses you should take a look at what I am responding to.

Show me where I answer a serious argument with comments about me.

I assume my intelligence is not very different from anybodies.

What is different is my experience and my arguments.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

- - - Updated - - -

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

I have a red cricket ball.

I have a cricket ball that has a mass of 160g

What is the minimum number of cricket balls I can have, for which both of these statements can be true?

(Hint - it's less than two).

 

[Emily Lake]

Funny thing is it ceases to be an illusion when you realize that it's an illusion.

This doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I think maybe he means it ceases to be illusory when you realize that it's an illusion.

That still doesn't make sense. Seriously... "That's an illusion!" and *poof* it's now real?

 

[Emily Lake]

But that has nothing to do with 'will'

I suppose at this point, I've got to ask... what do you consider "will"?

The desire/prompt or urge to think, deliberate and act. Conscious will is formed in response to stimuli...a problem arises, a need, a desire or a fear, which is thought about and acted upon. Stimuli always comes first, unconscious, then propagated/nerve impulses, processed/neural networks and responded to, motor action, both in conscious and unconscious forms. All being brain activity, including conscious experience.

Based on that, it doesn't seem like we're particularly far apart in perspective on this. It's more a matter of nuances in definition than anything else. At the end of the day, it looks like both of us accept that problem-solving and decision-making actually exists as a process, and prompts to deliberate and make decisions also exist.

What are we arguing about again?

 

[untermensche]

If people can make concise and coherent arguments in response to any of my arguments I will address them.

I address nonsense like this with what it is worth.

Instead of looking only at my responses you should take a look at what I am responding to.

Show me where I answer a serious argument with comments about me.

I assume my intelligence is not very different from anybodies.

What is different is my experience and my arguments.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

- - - Updated - - -

You are dancing around the issue because you have no answer to it.

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

I have a red cricket ball.

I have a cricket ball that has a mass of 160g

What is the minimum number of cricket balls I can have, for which both of these statements can be true?

(Hint - it's less than two).

This is not a logical formulation. It is a defining feature of awareness. The only way it can be. A truism.

That you think one should be the other shows how lost you are.

I am not making an argument I am expressing truisms. Defining something.

For awareness to occur two things are necessary.

(1) That which is capable of being aware

(2) That which that which is capable of being aware is capable of being aware of

This is not a logical formulation that you can copy and examine.

It is a series of truisms.

If you think they are not truisms show how awareness can exist without both.

 

[fast]

I think maybe he means it ceases to be illusory when you realize that it's an illusion.

That still doesn't make sense. Seriously... "That's an illusion!" and *poof* it's now real?

This is gonna be like trying to explain the fictional character vs character of fiction distinction.

But first, "real" is ambiguous. There is real vs counterfeit/fake. That's often conflated/confused with real vs imaginary.

A fake dollar bill is not a real dollar bill (using the first distinction), but a fake dollar bill is real (not imaginary).

Using the second sense, a real object is an object, but an imaginary object is not an object. It's the denial that there is an object. It doesn't exist. At all. In any way. No, it's not an actual object snuggled up in the imagination. No object. Not an object at all. The fact we use the word, "object" in the two-worded term "imaginary object" is quite unfortunate and misleading--much like people who hear "abstract object" leads to an awful confusion about the nature of abstract objects--they go off half cocked thinking an assertion has been made that hasn't.

So, real object on the one hand and imaginary (no object at all) on the other.

Tell me, if there is an illusionist performing a trick, is there an illusion? A bit of trickery, slight of hand, misguidance, optical misdirection? There is a show going on, a performance by a performer. You're not imagining it. It's real. What's real?

The fictional character in a storybook isn't going to pop out into the real world, but there are characters of fiction. We can describe goldilocks, rumplestillskin, and our beloved Scooby Doo.

Now to what you wrote. Take out the poof and the now. The counterfeit money (which isn't real) has been real all along--not imaginary. The characters of fiction are as real as the fictional characters aren't. There was an illusion, and it's real, not imaginary.

 

[Treedbear]

I think maybe he means it ceases to be illusory when you realize that it's an illusion.

That still doesn't make sense. Seriously... "That's an illusion!" and *poof* it's now real?

This is gonna be like trying to explain the fictional character vs character of fiction distinction.

But first, "real" is ambiguous. There is real vs counterfeit/fake. That's often conflated/confused with real vs imaginary.

A fake dollar bill is not a real dollar bill (using the first distinction), but a fake dollar bill is real (not imaginary).

Using the second sense, a real object is an object, but an imaginary object is not an object. It's the denial that there is an object. It doesn't exist. At all. In any way. No, it's not an actual object snuggled up in the imagination. No object. Not an object at all. The fact we use the word, "object" in the two-worded term "imaginary object" is quite unfortunate and misleading--much like people who hear "abstract object" leads to an awful confusion about the nature of abstract objects--they go off half cocked thinking an assertion has been made that hasn't.

So, real object on the one hand and imaginary (no object at all) on the other.

Tell me, if there is an illusionist performing a trick, is there an illusion? A bit of trickery, slight of hand, misguidance, optical misdirection? There is a show going on, a performance by a performer. You're not imagining it. It's real. What's real?

The fictional character in a storybook isn't going to pop out into the real world, but there are characters of fiction. We can describe goldilocks, rumplestillskin, and our beloved Scooby Doo.

Now to what you wrote. Take out the poof and the now. The counterfeit money (which isn't real) has been real all along--not imaginary. The characters of fiction are as real as the fictional characters aren't. There was an illusion, and it's real, not imaginary.

I would have just said that I mean once you've realized why it's an illusion it's no longer an illusion. But to me realizing something means the same thing as realizing why. Or am I missing something.

 

[fast]

This is gonna be like trying to explain the fictional character vs character of fiction distinction.

But first, "real" is ambiguous. There is real vs counterfeit/fake. That's often conflated/confused with real vs imaginary.

A fake dollar bill is not a real dollar bill (using the first distinction), but a fake dollar bill is real (not imaginary).

Using the second sense, a real object is an object, but an imaginary object is not an object. It's the denial that there is an object. It doesn't exist. At all. In any way. No, it's not an actual object snuggled up in the imagination. No object. Not an object at all. The fact we use the word, "object" in the two-worded term "imaginary object" is quite unfortunate and misleading--much like people who hear "abstract object" leads to an awful confusion about the nature of abstract objects--they go off half cocked thinking an assertion has been made that hasn't.

So, real object on the one hand and imaginary (no object at all) on the other.

Tell me, if there is an illusionist performing a trick, is there an illusion? A bit of trickery, slight of hand, misguidance, optical misdirection? There is a show going on, a performance by a performer. You're not imagining it. It's real. What's real?

The fictional character in a storybook isn't going to pop out into the real world, but there are characters of fiction. We can describe goldilocks, rumplestillskin, and our beloved Scooby Doo.

Now to what you wrote. Take out the poof and the now. The counterfeit money (which isn't real) has been real all along--not imaginary. The characters of fiction are as real as the fictional characters aren't. There was an illusion, and it's real, not imaginary.

I would have just said that I mean once you've realized why it's an illusion it's no longer an illusion. But to me realizing something means the same thing as realizing why. Or am I missing something.

If I'm tricked by a trick and later learn I was tricked, why is it still not a trick, because it's not tricking me? No, it's still a trick, just not effective on me anymore.

Consider an illusion, an optical illusion like a straw in a cup of water that appears to be bent as light reflects off it. I am tricked by the illusion into thinking the straw is bent when it's really not. Once I learn that the straw really isn't in fact bent, I'm no longer tricked by the illusion, which is still an optical illusion.

 

[bilby]

If people can make concise and coherent arguments in response to any of my arguments I will address them.

I address nonsense like this with what it is worth.

Instead of looking only at my responses you should take a look at what I am responding to.

Show me where I answer a serious argument with comments about me.

I assume my intelligence is not very different from anybodies.

What is different is my experience and my arguments.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

- - - Updated - - -

I admit I didn't provide the reference for what I presented last here.

It is: https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpre...nt-for-dualism-commit-the-masked-man-fallacy/

Supported by this: https://quizlet.com/91608082/objections-to-arguments-for-substance-dualism-flash-cards/

Argue with state of the art views on the topic untermenche. Doing so becomes Fake Philosophy.

Thank ewe, thank ewe berry munch.

More dancing.

I am making direct claims.

You somehow can't address any of them.

Tell me how there is awareness without the thing that has the ability to be aware.

Then tell me how there is awareness without the things the thing that can be aware is aware of.

Tell me how it occurs without both.

I have a red cricket ball.

I have a cricket ball that has a mass of 160g

What is the minimum number of cricket balls I can have, for which both of these statements can be true?

(Hint - it's less than two).

This is not a logical formulation. It is a defining feature of awareness. The only way it can be. A truism.

That you think one should be the other shows how lost you are.

I am not making an argument I am expressing truisms. Defining something.

For awareness to occur two things are necessary.

(1) That which is capable of being aware

(2) That which that which is capable of being aware is capable of being aware of

This is not a logical formulation that you can copy and examine.

It is a series of truisms.

If you think they are not truisms show how awareness can exist without both.

I shall need to do that, just as soon as you need to show how I must have at least two cricket balls.

Two things that are different properties of the same thing can be one thing.

Whether you like it or not; And whether or not you are too dumb to grasp this incredibly simple concept, or whether you are so immune to logic and reason as to think that Special Pleading in your preferred case is justified, it makes no difference - it remains true, and you remain wrong until you recognize that fact. Given your past history of admitting and correcting your errors on this board, I do not expect that this will ever occur - but that's not a problem for me in the slightest.

 

[beero1000]

\( \| A \cup B\| = \|A\| + \|B\| - \|A \cap B\|\)

I've never seen anyone continue to have difficulty with this concept after having it pointed out and explained to them, and I taught it last week to a class of 250. Truly exceptional.

 

[fast]

\( \| A \cup B\| = \|A\| + \|B\| - \|A \cap B\|\)

I've never seen anyone continue to have difficulty with this concept after having it pointed out and explained to them, and I taught it last week to a class of 250. Truly exceptional.

I haven't been following everyone's posts. What's the funny looking u and n

 

[Copernicus]

\( \| A \cup B\| = \|A\| + \|B\| - \|A \cap B\|\)

I've never seen anyone continue to have difficulty with this concept after having it pointed out and explained to them, and I taught it last week to a class of 250. Truly exceptional.

I haven't been following everyone's posts. What's the funny looking u and n

\(\cup\) is set union. \(\cap\) is set intersection. Basically, the equation says that the union of set A and set B equals all the members of A plus all the members of B minus a set of members that belong to both A and B. The subtraction removes duplicate members.