Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="2PhiloVoid" data-source="post: 77664868" data-attributes="member: 167101"><p>No, I think in terms of <u><strong><span style="color: rgb(209, 72, 65)">under</span></strong></u><strong>determination</strong> rather than in those of <u><strong><span style="color: rgb(209, 72, 65)">in</span></strong></u>determination.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree that anyone <u><em><strong><span style="color: rgb(209, 72, 65)">has</span></strong></em></u> to submit to, or be stuck within and only within, the specific semantic tact (or praxis) that you're wanting to harbor in. And, what's more, since you have a certain Game of "Catch the Butterfly" you're wanting to play, <strong>I'll simply admit that you've won your argument on your own semantic level</strong>, but I'll do so all the while continuing to sit here, drink some tea and ponder over some of the philosophical tensions that have manifested in the analysis of philosophically laden concepts used in metaphysics and science between folks like Descartes and Pascal, Wittgenstein and Turing, Einstein and Bohr (or Bon), Susskind and Smolin, or Sapolsky and _________ [fill in the blank].</p><p></p><p>There you go, Bradskii. You're free to continue on in your own chosen enclosure of Sapolskian Evolutionary Psychology. I'm not going to try to stop you or avert you from it, unless ... ... ...</p><p></p><p>Besides, why have a one-sided conversation? I'm not a fan of that sort of thing. And neither was Winston Smith, really.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="2PhiloVoid, post: 77664868, member: 167101"] No, I think in terms of [U][B][COLOR=rgb(209, 72, 65)]under[/COLOR][/B][/U][B]determination[/B] rather than in those of [U][B][COLOR=rgb(209, 72, 65)]in[/COLOR][/B][/U]determination. I disagree that anyone [U][I][B][COLOR=rgb(209, 72, 65)]has[/COLOR][/B][/I][/U] to submit to, or be stuck within and only within, the specific semantic tact (or praxis) that you're wanting to harbor in. And, what's more, since you have a certain Game of "Catch the Butterfly" you're wanting to play, [B]I'll simply admit that you've won your argument on your own semantic level[/B], but I'll do so all the while continuing to sit here, drink some tea and ponder over some of the philosophical tensions that have manifested in the analysis of philosophically laden concepts used in metaphysics and science between folks like Descartes and Pascal, Wittgenstein and Turing, Einstein and Bohr (or Bon), Susskind and Smolin, or Sapolsky and _________ [fill in the blank]. There you go, Bradskii. You're free to continue on in your own chosen enclosure of Sapolskian Evolutionary Psychology. I'm not going to try to stop you or avert you from it, unless ... ... ... Besides, why have a one-sided conversation? I'm not a fan of that sort of thing. And neither was Winston Smith, really. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Free will and determinism
Top
Bottom