Recent content by Jarhyn

Because his words are fallacious. It would be like asking anyone else doing any other sort of math to accept that someone else is correct under their own axioms when their axioms contain a claim of the truth of the axioms. I will repeat that if you want to talk to compatibilists, the actual...

An interesting aspect of the discussion about free will is what I commonly and perhaps apocryphally call "the Tinkerbell effect". The name comes from a scene in Peter Pan where Tinkerbell's life depends on whether people believe in her. This effect describes what many might consider the "core"...

Actually doing something starts with the need to "do something". The "something" is left vague because what each person CAN do is highly dependent on their context. Lifting up your hands and saying "we've tried nothing and are all out of options" is NOT effective. Yet again one of the reasons...

As I understand it, there IS a present for all observers; but it looks different to all observers relative to their position in it, such that it is curved. From every perspective the universe operates in a way distorted by the stuff at the perspective itself, such that for each of these...

When we constrain others such that they may ONLY make bad choices, this is a function of our wills, not theirs. In that situation, while they chose this crime, freely, over that crime, someone else had a choice of offering them crime or not-crime. Not offering someone something viable...

Which I have explained SO many times, there are TWO concepts of randomness going on here: undecidable but revealed information that does not correlate internally, necessarily, to any calculation obtainable from information within it; and "dice rolls are necessary to determine that landscape just...

See, Bruce? And it always devolves to THIS where he starts making claims about fatalism rather than mathematical determinism and utterly failing to argue about anything compatininilists discuss, and then claims bullshit like this: This is why he needs to be disabused of the belief...

Do you really want an answer to that question? Because there's an answer to that question.

No, apparently not. Apparently some people really do define determinism not just as a sort of machine process for a machine universe, but as a reduction of that, to say that it is not just determined but pre-determined.

No, you keep discussing radical fatalism. And I have explained this a number of times: radical fatalism is the belief that the notion that "I didn't means that I couldn't", that determination equates to pre-determination, and so on: that you need to be "free of prior cause" to be free in some...

Look under my user name. I'm not joking. I mean sometimes I joke about it because I do find it ridiculous, but I am absolutely serious about the reality of it. "Most people are mostly right most of the time" means religious people, too. It just means there are things they are wrong about and...

One interesting part of all of this is this idea of the personal boundary. It is a boundary created not of stones or even flesh or of the specific individual neurons, but by the just-so orderings of neurons. It is a boundary created by the resulting actions of those neurons being the way they...

I would assert we already have and that this is not the case. This is one of the reasons why I find it so very important to find our language about freedom and wills and the dances of desires and the fine navigation of an error space that is learning and striving and perhaps applying aperiodic...

There's a difference. For the things they rule on with respect to allowing the administration to act unchecked, these are when we see the shadow docket: stripping us of the fruits of our collective direction of some things. The places where Roberts provided opinions were places where he...

Well, because it takes fishing for exactly the right circumstances with which to spring the bad logic. To get these circumstances, Roberts has been known to offer opinions describing exactly the case that would let them apply whatever argument they would accept with a narrow but useful precedent...