4 ms·

I think the latter is a pretty silly way of looking at it. We have no evidence of free will, we have evidence against free will [1]. The axioms are in the epist

I think the latter is a pretty silly way of looking at it. We have no evidence of free will, we have evidence against free will [1]. The axioms are in the epistemology. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

mensetmanusman 5y ago
You used the word think assuming you have free will.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean because I used the word "think" that I meant "assume"?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    No, sorry. I was just pointing out how it is funny that these discussions use linguistic forms that assume free will i.e., verbs like ‘think’ and ‘do’. A proper discussion by someone who does not believe in free will would have to be entirely passive voice, i.e. describing what a flame does when it is exposed to gusts of wind or describing what a cloud of human atoms does when it is exposed to its environment.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      You can't derive metaphysics from language use. Nobody who says the wind is blowing thinks the wind is an agent. You'll also have a real big problem when you get to "It's raining," for example. In addition to this flawed methodology, active voice only indicates the source of an action. It doesn't convey anything about whether the agent had the ability to do other than they did, so you can't even find the information you were looking for in the language anyone here used even if it was meaningful to derive metaphysics from language use.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        Your first sentence seems like an axiom. To your second point, millions of people do still and have believed this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism ‘I am’ is a fun one to think about :)
        guerrilla 5y ago
        You seem to be confusing assertions with axioms. Have you ever considered taking an introductory philosophy class? I think it would clear up a lot for you. Just because someone doesn't give an argument for something doesn't mean that they don't have an argument for something. It seems you may be unaware of the study of language use and metaphysics that went on for most of the 20th century in analytic philosophy. I recommend looking into that. Millions of people believe many things that are false and their belief doesn't make any of those false things true. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
        mensetmanusman 5y ago
        That is true, in regards to assertions versus axioms, most people here are familiar with axioms, but in metaphysics everything is an assertion since not everyone agrees (or you have to define subsets of individuals who agree on a set of assertions which become axioms for those groups). E.g. Some assert there is free will (by definition, can’t be proven). Some assert there is no free will (by definition, can’t be proven).

mensetmanusman 5y ago

You used the word think assuming you have free will.

guerrilla 5y ago
I don't understand what you're saying. Do you mean because I used the word "think" that I meant "assume"?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  No, sorry. I was just pointing out how it is funny that these discussions use linguistic forms that assume free will i.e., verbs like ‘think’ and ‘do’. A proper discussion by someone who does not believe in free will would have to be entirely passive voice, i.e. describing what a flame does when it is exposed to gusts of wind or describing what a cloud of human atoms does when it is exposed to its environment.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    You can't derive metaphysics from language use. Nobody who says the wind is blowing thinks the wind is an agent. You'll also have a real big problem when you get to "It's raining," for example. In addition to this flawed methodology, active voice only indicates the source of an action. It doesn't convey anything about whether the agent had the ability to do other than they did, so you can't even find the information you were looking for in the language anyone here used even if it was meaningful to derive metaphysics from language use.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Your first sentence seems like an axiom. To your second point, millions of people do still and have believed this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism ‘I am’ is a fun one to think about :)
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        You seem to be confusing assertions with axioms. Have you ever considered taking an introductory philosophy class? I think it would clear up a lot for you. Just because someone doesn't give an argument for something doesn't mean that they don't have an argument for something. It seems you may be unaware of the study of language use and metaphysics that went on for most of the 20th century in analytic philosophy. I recommend looking into that. Millions of people believe many things that are false and their belief doesn't make any of those false things true. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.
        mensetmanusman 5y ago
        That is true, in regards to assertions versus axioms, most people here are familiar with axioms, but in metaphysics everything is an assertion since not everyone agrees (or you have to define subsets of individuals who agree on a set of assertions which become axioms for those groups). E.g. Some assert there is free will (by definition, can’t be proven). Some assert there is no free will (by definition, can’t be proven).