Close enough. This topic deserves significant care - of course, in the end, though, people buy into whatever they buy into.

Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out when YouTube is working for me again

If the concept of the universe being deterministic interferes with one’s concept of free will, then one of these must be true:

• the universe is nondeterministic, or has nondeterministic elements
• one’s concept of determinism is incorrect
• one’s concept of the impact of determinism on one’s own free will is incorrect

But of course, that begs:

• ones concept of free will is incorrect

But that cannot be, because your notion of free will is for you to decide, even if the universe is somehow determinate.

But that doesn’t mean the universe is or is not deterministic, it just means one or more of the above three things.

Ultimately, though, I was not making an argument concerning the fundamental nature of free will and determinism, or whether or not the universe is deterministic. I was arguing for completely processing fundamental concepts before you accept them to be true, because often times we accept a lot of false implications alongside the true things we accept.

One’s world view holds immense power in one’s own life. People do not intentionally act in accordance with things they do not believe to be the case. To accept determinism without fully processing the implications thereof, particularly if it “feels wrong but seems true” is to enter into and sign up for those internal conflicts writ large in one’s own life.

I also don’t believe that the universe is absolutely deterministic, but that’s a different argument that others have made better than I likely would.

I’ll help:

You are not interpreting me correctly.

Edit: give a snarky response, get a snarky response.

Look into Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and the philosophical implications of that.

A lot of times, when we’re dealing with the assertion that we don’t have free will, we’re analyzing that according to rule-based systems. The system that we use to evaluate truth isn’t entirely rule-based, and is necessarily a superset of what we can consciously evaluate.

In effect, some less-complex system that is a subset of your larger mind is saying ‘you have limits, and they are this.’ But your larger mind disagrees, because that more rule-based subset of rights is incapable of knowing the limits of its superset. Though, we just feel like it’s ‘off’.

If it feels like it’s off, there’s a good chance that the overall way you’re thinking of it isn’t right, even if the literal thing you’re focused on has some degree of truth.

In short, it’s possible to know something that is technically true, but that isn’t interpreted correctly internally.

If you accept the model that you have no free will without processing the larger feelings it evokes, then whether or not your internal sense of free will is rule-based, you’ll artificially limit the way you think to filter out the internal process you think of as free will. …and that can have massive consequences for your happiness and viability as an organism, because you’ve swapped away that which you actually are for labels and concepts of what you are - but your concept is fundamentally less complex and led capable than you are as a whole.

Fortunately, rule-based systems break when faced with reality. It’s just that it can be very painful to go through that process with what you identify with.

Legend.

It’s the only true vegan meat - given with consent.

Enjoy your battle.

Telling me I’d like to watch it all burn, and then calling me a political pacifist in the next breath? Come on, now, you can do better.

The debt isn’t an abstract thing that can be unilaterally printed away. It has real-world consequences, real-world resources that can’t be ignored, and that the US isn’t even in a position to come out on top of once it comes calling.

I’m glad you’re fighting that political fight. It keeps you occupied, and keeps them occupied. Like a pair of dysfunctional lovers, you deserve each other. I’m watching, and I’m learning. I know how to take advantage of the mistakes you make, and ones they make, and use them to my own personal advantage, as well as to the advantage of other moderate folks that I’m perfectly willing to give business preference to, and reach out for, and go the extra mile for.

…just… …keep fighting, bud. It’ll end soon enough. …and certainly, you will win. Perhaps not like you think, though.

The debt is going to come calling, and I’m sure you’ll blame Republicans, and I’m sure they’ll blame you.

Perhaps I’ll have my place self-sustaining by then, perhaps not. But I’ll be sure to keep plenty of popcorn stocked.

Nah. Both sides are off their rockers. Absolute fucking nutters. One’s just more violent. But neither can be trusted with any kind of control over others.

It’s kinda funny how fanatically people point out that it’s the other side that’s the problem.

shrug it’s a post currently showing up in “all”.

Go ahead and get another last word in if you like - you’re arguing with your own ghosts, mostly. Have a good night.

Pretty clear that’s the case here in the comments on this post.

Kinda cringey.

They are, in accordance with the teachings of Jim the Stegosaurus.

I don’t have a horse in this race, but man, let it drop. The person who’s fighting for ridiculous improbabilities here is you. Nobody you’re arguing with in this thread is even making a claim that Magic Jesus existed. Just that the man named Jesus who is talked about by the early Christians likely existed (which is scholarly consensus, not even a niche claim). They’re specifically not claiming that the fantastical claims made by the early Christians about that man are true.

Sick burns

licks the edible paper, but it tastes like plant

meows

The only proper response.

Interesting how you use “simple” and “mail server” in the same sentence.