If that isn't an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. — Echarmion

Marijuana doesn't talk.

Is that what you were looking for?

Instead of explaining why it's not a contradiction/incoherent, or heaven forbid, actually admitting that you might just be a tiny bit wrong about something, you just say that my reading comprehension (SAT-level) is at fault. — Isaac

Because every response of yours is based on not being able to read or reason very well. I'm not going to continually respond to argumentative posts of a few hundred words that are fueled by reading comprehension and reasoning problems without commenting on that fact. Especially when I hate arguing.

blah, blah, posturing. — Coben

Good argument.

Stochastic processes have a random element. How does random translate into free will. — Coben

Where was the part where anyone said, "Hey, I have a blueprint for how free will works in terms of mechanism," or "Just in case I don't have a blueprint for how free will works, that suggests that there is no free will, even though the only support for that is a view that was popular in the sciences only over 150 years ago"? No one wrote anything like that.

I am no expert in whether stochastic models are ontologically non-deterministic — Coben

That's not an issue that the sciences even addresses because the sciences don't care. Scientists typically don't want to do ontology. They want to do science, and they conventionally approach it instrumentally. They tend to see ontological questions like that as something that philosophers can do while they're also debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, hopefully someplace where they're not going to bother scientists.

Which is part of the point. The sciences haven't conventionally posited a Laplacean, strongly deterministic world for a long time.

It's about the fact that you reference paragraphs which cover degree-level topics as being understandable with SAT-level comprehension skills. — Isaac

This would be another reading comprehension issue on your part. What are you reading the above way?

If you are talking about qm effects or patterns, these are not deterministic, but so far I haven't heard how these could lead to freedom. — Coben

I'm not only talking about quantum mechanics. Hasn't anyone here actually studied science? Another class of phenomena that haven't been considered deterministic for a long time is (macro) stochastic phenomena. How could one have studied science and not be familiar with stochastic phenomena? And if we haven't studied science, why would we be arguing something based on science?

The whole idea is that people on message boards argue against free will based on a belief that the sciences posit a Laplacean, strongly deterministic world. They haven't conventionally posited that for over 150 years.

unless you have some bizarre objection to explaining yourself, — Isaac

If I'm interacting with an Aspie who wants to argue with me, even if it's simply because I have a lot of views that are different than their own views, then explaining myself is going to be a never-ending task. So that would be my objection to it. It's laborious, and ultimately futile in my opinion (reflected by the fact that I keep putting the word "literal" in quotation marks) to try to "Aspie-proof" everything one says.

A suggestion that would help a lot--and I know I gave this suggestion earlier, is that rather than approaching a desire for clarification in an argumentative manner, try approaching it in an inquisitive manner--you catch more flies with honey than vinegar . . . of course, to do that, you have to at least be able to pretend that you're interested in others persons' views simply because they're another person's views, and you have an interest in understanding other persons' views as such.

Fine, I will bite. "I have faith in a god that does not exist" seems nonsensical to me. Can you tell me how you define "faith", "god", and "exist" and then I can see if it starts to make any sense. — ZhouBoTong

The way I read that when I first noticed it was that it amounted to saying, "My belief that god does not exist is epistemically a faith belief."

"I have faith in a god that does not exist" would be an odd way to say that grammatically (and logically, perhaps--it suggests some sort of weird, Meinongish ontology maybe), but sometimes people say things that are weird grammatically.

Yes, I'm just asking which quote, you've quoted several. — Isaac

You quoted the passage that starts with this: "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . ." and asked where you said anything to the contrary.

The passage that starts with "(1) SAT is a standardized test . . . " followed me quoting a single, eleven-word sentence of yours.

So I'm not literally saying above that I'm using a foundationalist approach. You need to be able to not read everything in an overly "literal" and simplified way. It wouldn't be a question if you were able to do that.

"Where?" was the question, not "how?". — Isaac

Haha, overly "literal" again. I quoted the comment in question right above the content of mine we're talking about. That's the whole idea behind quoting something and then commenting after you quote it.

Maybe try answering the questions within the topic under discussion rather your opinion on my personality? — Isaac

I address what's an issue as it occurs, and sometimes what's an issue is (due to) someone's personality.

Where have I said anything to the contrary? — Isaac

Via conflating my comments about academic achievement and its implications for intelligence (which you're reading overly "literally") with a comment (that you also read overly "literally") about the SAT.

Yes. — Isaac

Thanks for being honest about that. It's been fairly obvious on a number of occasions.

What 'contextual clues' indicate is a subjective matter, — Isaac

Sure, and a matter that Aspies have a lot of problems handling in any sort of conventional manner. That's one of the characteristics of the condition. Maybe try having less attitude if you don't want to come across as someone who is obviously an Aspie and who is apparently an asshole about it? (Although if you want to come across as that, you're doing a fine job,)

So now academic achievement is a measure of relevant intellectual skills. — Isaac

Your reading comprehension and reasoning problems evidenced in this post: (1) SAT is a standardized test that's taken on one occasion; it's evaluated "blindly," and by machines. Obtaining a degree is a long process that isn't standardized, and there are lots of different subjective, biased factors involved. (2) You're again suggesting that you're an Aspie, and you read everything as "literal" as possible.

You obviously can't know the full breadth of the endeavor. — thewonder

What sorts of things would you say constitute "knowing the full breadth," so that one can't know this for suicide, but where it's the sort of thing one needs to know to consent to anything?

How can any emotion be rational? — Isaac

Again, this suggests that you're an Aspie. Same problem: I'm asking because this is further evidence of your reading comprehension deficiencies. You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance.

For a start, I thought you'd made it clear you didn't have any core tenets and everything was judged on a case by case basis. — Isaac

Are you an Aspie? I'm asking because this is further evidence of your reading comprehension deficiencies. You have a tendency to read everything "as 'literal' as possible," with no evidenced ability to pick up on contextual clues for semantic nuance.

Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills. — Isaac

See my SAT score.

What does it matter what anyone does or does not prohibt in regards to suicide? — thewonder

Again, what I think it matters is that I think it's immoral to prohibit someone from doing anything they consensually want to do. That's one of the core tenets for me re my ethics.

I'm in favor of letting anyone do whatever they consensually want to do, including suicide. Like uncanni I'd not encourage anyone to commit suicide, but to me it seems immoral to prohibit people from doing whatever they want to do, as long as it's consensual.

What would you make of a Bernie or Warren candidacy? — StreetlightX

With Bernie, I can't imagine that a lot of people wouldn't be leery about a president being only about six months shy of 80 years old before he even enters office.

Maybe I'm overestimating the number of people who'd be cautious due to that, but do the Democrats really want to have potential additional handicaps working against whoever they nominate? I would think they'd want to find someone with the least amount of handicaps possible. Can't the Democrats get someone like Peyton Manning to run?

IOW above you say sometimes the problem rests with the listener, implying strongly that sometimes it is the sender's problem. — Coben

Actually it's just a rhetorical tactic to avoid sidelining the idea with a bigger dispute that's not what you want to focus on.

A pet peeve of mine here, which tends to be a bigger problem with doing this on a message board rather than via chat, is that we don't focus on one idea at a time and resolve anything about it.

Intent — schopenhauer1

Why would intent be a problem if the actions it's directed towards are not a problem?

Impeachment is not carried out lightly. — Amity

It's not going to be carried out period. Especially not in this term. Things wouldn't even really start rolling until the election is already here.

Which underscores that this is probably just a ploy, just an attempt to time what they can hope to turn into a negative-press diversion just in time for the next election.

Meanwhile, there are tons of people with real issues that need to be addressed . . . but that are just being ignored, because politicians are wrapped up in what's essentially flame-war nonsense.

Again, trying to be mean to someone isn't the "fault" of the person its targeted to. There can be mutually exclusive things going on a) the aggressor is wrong for being mean b) the target should try to grow a thick skin. — schopenhauer1

Why is the aggressor wrong for being mean if no one should be upset at what the aggressor is doing?

Again, "mean" here is more about intensity, context, duration, intent, etc. — schopenhauer1

Ah--intensity, etc. of the "mean person," not the person who sees it as mean?

I don't think that needs to be "excused" though when the problem lies with seeing the behavior as mean.

So are you bringing up epistemic arguments that since there is no arbiter of how intense or persistent the mean person is actually being, it becomes useless to try to figure it out? — schopenhauer1

??

No. I was saying that there are fears that are intense and persistent but not rational, so we try to fix the fact that people have them rather than moderating the external stuff that triggered the fear.

Yes, this would be a straw man. Because some people overreact all mean acts are exempt? — schopenhauer1

You suggested intensity and persistence as criteria.

Most people love a message of Hope and Optimism.
Politicians on both sides use this as cover for their real agenda.
You fell for his bullshit. You were not alone.
How easy it is to fool even those with intellect... — Amity

Yeah, in this case it was because he was a political outsider and was being so iconoclastic.

I've explained this before, but I voted for Trump. As I've said many times, I'm a very idiosyncratic sort of libertarian socialist. I can't stand either Democrats or Republicans. I can't stand that we have a system in which only two parties are practically viable. With respect to my concerns, Democrats and Republicans are far more alike than they're different. Normally I vote for either Libertarian or Green candidates, but practically, both are "wasted votes," because typically the best showing for a third party candidate is about 0.4% of the total vote, and the percentage hasn't grown in decades.

So why did I vote for Trump? Well, I liked how iconoclastic and unapologetic he was being. I liked that he was promising to shake things up in Washington and trash a lot of the traditional way that politics is done there. And I liked that he was focusing so much on bringing jobs back to Americans. That hit on two of my major agendas: the system needs an overhaul (if it's not simply just trashed and rebuilt), and politicians need to be focusing on things that make a practical difference in their constituency's daily lives. Having a decent job obviously makes a difference in folks' daily lives.

The fact that Trump came from the business world rather than being a career politician--I'm not fond of career politicians and I'd not be opposed to requiring that we don't have any (by say, only allowing someone to occupy a office one time/one term, and not more than two different offices total; I'd also make their income as politicians hinge on their success re accomplishing things that have a practical, positive effect on folks' lives, as well as not increasing--with a bonus for decreasing, total legislation)--gave me hope that he might be able to change things.

Stuff like Trump talking about building a border wall I didn't take at all seriously, because the idea of it is so ridiculous. I took it to be him basically trolling in a positive way--an example of being iconoclastic and f-ing with norms (of campaign rhetoric in this case--I almost saw him as doing some sort of odd performance art rather than just interpreting him to be a moron), because the system needs to be changed.

Of course, Trump turned out to actually be serious about the border wall much to my chagrin (I'm for worldwide open borders--I'd prefer we didn't even have separate countries; I'd only screen for wanted criminals/known terrorists/terrorist associates), and aside from that, he basically did jackshit to change the way politics is normally done in Washington or to make any practical difference in folks' daily lives. Mostly what he seemed to do was get into flame wars with people on twitter (and in the media more generally). Not that any other politicians are helping, of course--focusing on crap like the "collusion" nonense, trying to get Trump impeached, etc. is also doing jackshit to make anyone's lives better in a practical, daily sense. How about we stop worrying about nonsense like that and figure out how to make sure that no American has to go without healthcare/specific health procedures, medicine, etc. they need, just because they can't afford to pay for it?

So would I vote for him again? Not in a million years. But I voted for him in the first place because of misguided optimism (I tend to be an "irrational optimist") that he would actually shake things up and focus on practical things that mattered.

So I'm going back to voting for Libertarian and/or Green candidates mostly. Not that I fully agree with either party--obviously, as they're opposites in many ways, but they're the two parties that can get on major ballots that I actually share some views with.

Oh, and why I voted for Trump may not be why most people who voted for Trump voted for him. I have no idea whether it would be or not. But it's important to keep in mind that people probably voted for him for many different reasons, many of which aren't going to be obvious. The only way to find out is to talk to a bunch of different sorts of people about why they voted for him (and hopefully they'll be honest and can be articular and detailed about it).

Yeah, I'd agree with your example, too. If you're being selective to be misleading, but you're not actually saying anything that you don't believe to be the case.

I would say, by the way, that there would be a way that we could maybe make sense of out "lying but tell the truth," although it wouldn't be via your example.

Rather, this is basically what we're doing when we're being facetious or sarcastic. Someone does something and asks how it was, and you say, "Oh, yeah, that was great" sarcastically--so in other words, you thought it was awful. Technically it's not really a lie--you're expressing what you honestly think, it's just that you're doing it, via a type of implicature, with an expression that you'd normally use to express the opposite of what you're saying.

We agree! But again can you please answer the questions? — 3017amen

I thought you were asking "How do we make a leap to purpose in evolution"--in other words, so that there's a purpose to evolution in some manner, at some point. The answer is that we don't.

If you're asking "How do we make a leap to purpose in how we think about things," it's just an upshot to consciousness as it's realized in us--we have conscious motivations and goals for things. That's a way that our brain works. It doesn't need to have an evolutionary advantage for it to work that way, but that does have evolutionary advantages, because it enabled us to prepare in advance for hard/lean times--it allowed us to think ahead re food, shelter, clothing, etc.

Note, by the way that I'm answering your questions as requested, and making adjustments as requested, so you're going to be expected to do the same when I ask you a question.

There's no purpose to anything in evolution.

That's why I had written "There is no purpose to evolution [period]"

Purposes are ways that individuals think about things.

It's good enough, sure. Nothing there about purpose.

Sure that makes sense but it doesn't explain why and for what purpose we have those traits correct? — 3017amen

There is no purpose to evolution.

I'm asking you about these particular traits :

Love and math. — 3017amen

That's fine. But I'm not saying something about those particular traits yet. I'm saying something about evolution in general first, without talking about particular traits. Does that make sense to you?

Well I'm not sure I'm guessing that you mean any trait.

For example, why do we have musical ability? — 3017amen

??

I'm saying something general about evolution. Not something about any particular trait.

Are you absolutely sure? In other words you have explained hat it's just an additional feature but could not explain why? — 3017amen

So first, about this idea re evolution, do you understand that I'm not talking about any specific trait?

Based on your explanation apparently not. Which in turn begs the question as to why it exists? — 3017amen

I explained this already--how something can exist even though it's neutral or even disadvantageous for survival (not that I'm claiming this about anything in particular, just to stave off you reading it that way). So I'd just be repeating the explanation of that I gave earlier.