No offense, but this is a textbook example of an answer that sounds pithy but tells me, in a word, nothing. What exactly am I supposed to get out of this? How am I supposed to argue against this? This is a one-word answer that acts as a blackbox, preventing anyone from actually getting anything worthwhile out of it—just like “emergence”. I have asked you several times now to lay out exactly what your disagreement is. Unless you and I have wildly varying definitions of the word “exactly”, you have repeatedly failed to do so. You have displayed no desire to actually elucidate your position to the point where it would actually be arguable. I would characterize your replies to my requests so far as a near-perfect example of logical rudeness. My probability estimate of you actually wanting to go somewhere with this conversation is getting lower and lower...
Tsk, tsk. Such naked privileging of an assertion.
This is a thinly veiled expression of contempt that again asserts nothing. The flippancy this sort of remark exhibits suggests to me that you are more interested in winning than in truth-seeking. If you think I am characterizing your attitude uncharitably, please feel free to correct me on this point.
In simple terms, I think humans have free will and you think they don’t.
Taboo “free will” and try to rephrase your argument without ever using that phrase or any synonymous terms/phrases. (An exception would be if you were trying to refer directly to the phrase, in which case you would put it in quotation marks, e.g. “free will”.) Now then, what were you saying?
You are supposed to get out of this that you’re asking me to prove a negative and I don’t see a way to do this other than say “I’ve looked and found nothing” (aka introspection). How do you expect me to prove that I do NOT have a deterministic algorithm running my mind?
How am I supposed to argue against this?
You are not supposed to argue against this. You are supposed to say “Aha, so this a point where we disagree and there doesn’t appear to be a way to prove it one way or another”.
you have repeatedly failed to do so.
From my point of view you repeatedly refused to understand what I’ve been saying. You spent all your time telling me, but not listening.
This is a thinly veiled expression of contempt that again asserts nothing.
Oh, it does. It asserts that you are treating determinism as a natural and default answer and the burden is upon me to prove it wrong. I disagree.
Taboo “free will” and try to rephrase your argument without ever using that phrase or any synonymous terms/phrases.
Why? This is the core of my position. If you think I’m confused by words, tell me how am I confused. It the problem that you don’t understand me? I doubt this.
No offense, but this is a textbook example of an answer that sounds pithy but tells me, in a word, nothing. What exactly am I supposed to get out of this? How am I supposed to argue against this? This is a one-word answer that acts as a blackbox, preventing anyone from actually getting anything worthwhile out of it—just like “emergence”. I have asked you several times now to lay out exactly what your disagreement is. Unless you and I have wildly varying definitions of the word “exactly”, you have repeatedly failed to do so. You have displayed no desire to actually elucidate your position to the point where it would actually be arguable. I would characterize your replies to my requests so far as a near-perfect example of logical rudeness. My probability estimate of you actually wanting to go somewhere with this conversation is getting lower and lower...
This is a thinly veiled expression of contempt that again asserts nothing. The flippancy this sort of remark exhibits suggests to me that you are more interested in winning than in truth-seeking. If you think I am characterizing your attitude uncharitably, please feel free to correct me on this point.
Taboo “free will” and try to rephrase your argument without ever using that phrase or any synonymous terms/phrases. (An exception would be if you were trying to refer directly to the phrase, in which case you would put it in quotation marks, e.g. “free will”.) Now then, what were you saying?
You are supposed to get out of this that you’re asking me to prove a negative and I don’t see a way to do this other than say “I’ve looked and found nothing” (aka introspection). How do you expect me to prove that I do NOT have a deterministic algorithm running my mind?
You are not supposed to argue against this. You are supposed to say “Aha, so this a point where we disagree and there doesn’t appear to be a way to prove it one way or another”.
From my point of view you repeatedly refused to understand what I’ve been saying. You spent all your time telling me, but not listening.
Oh, it does. It asserts that you are treating determinism as a natural and default answer and the burden is upon me to prove it wrong. I disagree.
Why? This is the core of my position. If you think I’m confused by words, tell me how am I confused. It the problem that you don’t understand me? I doubt this.