It's annoying, MU your deliberate misreading... — tim wood

I do not believe that it is deliberate. It's very annoying none-the-less.

A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for.

If someone is talking in terms of "giving up free will", either they are already presupposing that they had it to give, or they are someone who is talking about giving up on the idea/belief/notion called "free will".

Those are two very different kinds of situations. You need people to quote from that are of the first group above. If you quote from someone who is from the second, the joke is nonsensical in that context. The joke doesn't work with someone who knows that there is nothing more to "free will" than being a human conception.

It was originally coined/invented as a means(an attempt) to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil.

The joke - in order to elicit response(s) confirming the quality - requires an audience that already believes that humans have free will or do not recognize the fallacious nature of the language use, and thus are easily swayed.

Testing that joke - as a purported 'theory' - will show two groups of people; those who recognize it's fallacious, and those who do not. Who needs a theory to show that some people do not recognize fallacious reasoning/thought in the wild(during normal everyday events).

To this...

The joke presupposes exactly what is at issue. One cannot give away something they've never had. Poor language use doesn't make a good argument. Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about giving up on the idea or giving up the belief in free will. — creativesoul

...came this...

The scenarios of the joke are simple enough to test it in a cafe with a friend. Since we can assume that enough people tested the scenarios from 22 May 2011 - we can start to talk about it as a theory — Damir Ibrisimovic

...to which I replied as such...

Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild?

The joke is a bit ironic... — creativesoul

...and was then a bit astonished at this...

The proposal is "Free Will exists" and it's not new. With enough tests, the proposal is promoted into theory. What is new are scenarios to test the new theory. :)

I'm not really interested to judge the capacity of other people to recognise pure reasoning... — Damir Ibrisimovic

...which seems to miss the point entirely.

Attitudes towards statements of thought are where certainty and uncertainty reside. Attitudes.

Thoughts aren't the sort of thing that can be certain or uncertain. Thoughts do not doubt their own truth. Rather, they presuppose it somewhere along the line. Uncertainty arises from doubt. It is a product thereof. If a thing cannot doubt, it is not the sort of thing that can be uncertain. Thoughts aren't the sort of thing that can doubt.

Language use matters.

The irony... :lol:

I overstated the importance of language...

:joke:

Edited to add the following exception...

To be clear... creatures without statements can be uncertain about the immediate future as well. My cat can be uncertain about the noise it heard, or about the stability of what she's about to step onto. Her thoughts about the noise and the structure aren't uncertain. Rather, she is as a result of having those thoughts.

Should people be allowed to laugh at religion?

Sure.

People should also be allowed to laugh at science.

Seems to me that if one has a good grasp upon how thought and belief work, including the brute power of one's initial worldview and they couple that with also understanding what it takes to change one's worldview, we'd all be much better off and there would be a lot less making fun and a lot more respect simply because no one makes a mistake on purpose.

New experiences bring about new emotions. That's what I mean — Blue Lux

Sure. Choose them wisely.

:wink:

Learning how to come to more acceptable terms with the same past events is a new experience.

One can object to whatever they wish. Doesn't make the objection worth listening and/or assenting to.

You argue for free will and then claim one cannot change the way they feel. That is to say that the will is not free to change one's own emotions.

You're arriving at self-contradiction...

It does not follow from the fact that the will is influenced, that one cannot acquire knowledge of those influences and then choose better ones...

That's as close as free will gets.

Regarding the OP, the author must first acknowledge that his/her emotions are largely influenced by how they've come to terms with things, and then s/he may be able to come to better(more acceptable) terms. A therapist could help.

Language strives to capture emotion or reconfigure it into a communicably apprehendable way, not to establish it. It cannot establish it. It is pre established! — Blue Lux

Do not confuse language with thought and belief. Complex thought and belief requires language. As do complex emotions. There are no jealous infants, nor disappointed ones. There are ones in discomfort(discontent), contentment, and fearful ones...

If the human will is not free from influence then it is not completely free. I choose radical freedom. — Blue Lux

Choose whatever words you wish. The human will is not free from influence.

Well...

Not just "because of words". That's much too simple a description.

But yeah, pretty much, in overly simple terms.

Nah. It was a bit confusing. "Former" and "latter" refer to temporal sequence. Self-referential claims ought be improved.

:wink:

Language itself does not do it. — Blue Lux

Language itself includes users.

Most emotion is utterly empty if it weren't for all the language that preceded it
— creativesoul

Surely you mean 'empty' as in conceptually empty...

I mean empty as in nonexistent.

As you already know, certain words or phrases can bring about entirely 'new' emotional states of mind
— creativesoul

Are you implying that words themselves create emotions?

Words themselves includes usage and all that that entails. Yes, I am claiming that most of our emotions are products of being interdependent social creatures. All arise from contentment and fear.

Language affects/effects thought and belief.
— creativesoul

I agree that it affects thought, but that thought and belief are determined by language itself is a very unfree idea.

I see it quite the other way around. Realizing that language use affects/effects one's own thought and belief is the first step necessary in being as free as humans can get. The human will is not free from influence. Knowing that is required for intentionally choosing better influences. Words influence.

"The latter" refers to "something else". "The former" refers to "something".

When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former

Change "something" to X and "something else" to Y.

When X is existentially dependent upon Y, Y always exists prior to X.

Change X to apple strudel. Change Y to apples.

I have it right. Not sure how you've arrived at the opposite of what was claimed...

I don't think attempting to draw a sharp distinction between reason(language use) and emotion will lead one to understanding how one gets to a point where they feel a certain way. Some emotion is bound up in the way one comes to terms with life. Most emotion is utterly empty if it weren't for all the language that preceded it. Language affects/effects thought and belief. Thought and belief have efficacy. As you already know, certain words or phrases can bring about entirely 'new' emotional states of mind.

That's the proof of the power that language and thought/belief has upon one's emotional state of mind. Bittercrank offered a fine example of self-discipline with the flat tire scenario. Emotional intelligence is what we often call the ability to recognize one's own past emotional triggers ahead of time, in order to improve one's response/reaction should a similar situation arise again...

Best of luck to you...

p1 When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former
p2 All thinking about thought and belief(metacognition henceforth) is existentially dependent upon(requires henceforth) pre-existing thought and belief
C1 Some thought and belief exists prior to metacognition(from p1, p2)
p3 All metacognition requires the ability to identify, isolate, and subsequently consider pre-existing thought and belief as it's own subject matter
p4 The ability to identify, isolate, and subsequently consider pre-existing thought and belief as it's own subject matter requires complex written language
C2 All metacognition requires complex written language(from p3, p4)
C3 Complex written language is prior to metacognition(from C2, p1)
p5 Some thought and belief is existentially prior to complex written language
p6 That which is existentially prior to complex written language cannot consist of it
C4 Some thought and belief cannot consist of complex written language

Your use of "seems legit" reminds me of apokrisis...

:wink:

But does belief not require learning? — Blue Lux

Well, on my view some belief is virtually indistinguishable from learning. Particularly, rudimentary(nonlinguistic) belief such as the attribution/recognition of causality.

I agree with regard to novelty. New(original) correlations cannot be rightfully called "correct".

All language acquisition requires learning
All learning requires thought and belief
All language acquisition requires thought and belief
All language acquisition requires correctly attributing meaning
Correctly attributing meaning requires drawing the same correlation(s) that has/have already been drawn between things by the other speakers of that language
All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(truth as correspondence)
All meaningful attribution requires the presupposition of truth(as correspondence)
All language acquisition requires the presupposition of truth(as correspondence)

Still believe that language use doesn't affect/effect subsequent thought?

The Great Mustache does... from the grave.

Think what you want.

Still believe that language use doesn't affect/effect subsequent thought?

:wink:

I've always heard it was syphilis. What it was wasn't relevant.

Disease aside...

Better?

The Great Moustache's madness pervades his writing...

His insanity was a direct result of not knowing what sort of things could be true and what makes them so. His insanity was a direct result of his not knowing what to believe and why. His insanity was a direct result of his placing an overwhelming amount of value in exactly what he aimed to devalue by proclaiming it dead. His insanity was a direct result of his thought and belief being riddled with self-contradiction. Syphilis aside...

Reader...

Take care to note what happened to the Great Moustache. Note the similar feeling of insanity here...

Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild?

The joke is a bit ironic...

This is beginning to look like an exercise in gratuitous assertion with a bit of red herring and non-sequitur thrown in for good measure.

The joke presupposes exactly what is at issue. One cannot give away something they've never had. Poor language use doesn't make a good argument. Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about giving up on the idea or giving up the belief in free will.

Things other than humans exist.

Are you disagreeing?

I'm adhering to my own philosophical position, which places the utmost importance upon getting human thought and belief right.

Human knowledge is existentially dependent upon humans. That's common sense. It does not follow from that that human knowledge cannot be about other things.

I'm not even sure what "'a' knowledge" is supposed to mean.

A bit of knowledge, perhaps?

Yeah, you're throwing all sorts of different things out here...

Not a bad tact actually.

Separate the true claims. Gather them all in one place. See what can be made out of them all together.

Knowledge boils down to a characterization of what it is to be human, not of what anything else is. — Blue Lux

Rubbish.

"Never believe anything to be true unless it can be shown to be absolutely false." — Blue Lux

That is on point actually. It's called falsification. It's not about knowledge so much as it is about warrant. That too is what underwrites JTB.

In order for S to know P, S must be justified in believing P, and P must be true. This too has it's issues, but that's what JTB is about.

Not all belief is properly represented by P. That is one of the problems inherent in JTB that allows Case II to gain purchase.

JTB does not apply to all the accepted uses of the words "knowledge" or "know" or "knowing"....

What of the Gettier 'problems'?

Case I has Gettier changing Smith's belief in a way that changes it's truth conditions, and case two has Gettier misrepresenting what it takes to believe a disjunction. Neither is a problem for JTB.