What ... only if you actually wish to redefine perpetual motion?

But I will give my retractions and apologies in advance, because Scott would like to redefine perpetual motion into something feasible and I will be expecting Scott to edit the relevant wiki page forthwith.

lies and misrepresentation. Another of your modes of argument

scott1328 wrote:lies and misrepresentation. Another of your modes of argument

Do you or do you not believe in perpetual motion?

archibald wrote:Scott, you did seem to imply that you believed in perpetual motion on page 217. Post 337.

Post 337 does not appear to lie on page 217, at least on the viewing mode of 20 posts per page.

Thommo wrote:

archibald wrote:Scott, you did seem to imply that you believed in perpetual motion on page 217. Post 337.

Post 337 does not appear to lie on page 217, at least on the viewing mode of 20 posts per page.

It was somewhere near one of them. I'm nearly sure.

archibald wrote:

romansh wrote:Scott ... I do not believe for one second that you believe that frictionless action occurs. (perpetual motion in this sense exists)
I do not believe you think actions without cause (free will in this sense exists)

You insist on redefining free will because it is incoherent/impossible in this sense. Fair enough.
But you are quite happy hang on to the incoherent/impossible sense of perpetual motion.

This paradox is what I don't understand.

I think I can explain, perhaps.

Because we cherish free will and are almost obliged to live in the very very convincing illusion of having it

This is the philosophy forum. It's not the Harry Potter forum. Please don't ever again tell someone that you can explain the notion of free will within the philosophy forum merely by ASSERTING that it's a "very very convincing illusion". Because, to be honest, that would [and does] make you look like a complete cunt. Not that I'm averse to shining such a light upon you, of course, but if you repeat such billshit make a similar error of judgement again I think that I'm going to get my best silver platter for the occasion. A platter, ironically, I don't bother to clean the scum off. I mean, that's what it's for. A scum plate. It's similar to a toilet in that respect. And since your 'arguments' are full of shit, I'm quite sure you'll get the analogy.

I would normally wish most of my adversaries well, or be jovial to some extent with them, but you leave me completely cold and dry. I don't actually give two shits about you. Even the people in your own camp are [indirectly] calling you a cunt. Perhaps you should have a word with yourself? Whatever, as ever, I don't really give a fuck. I'm just being sincere... as always. The bottom-line is that I'll gladly take a formal warning for calling YOU a cunt, without regret.
gardless of their metaphysics, you know?

Oh you and your silly ideas. Whatever next, perpetual phlogiston?

The case against free will is one of the simpler arguments. In a nutshell, it's impossible, because it would defy the laws of physics.

Short and sweet.

Counter arguments welcome.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2525770.html

This is the post that Romansh is mis remembering.

So here is a demonstration how Romansh owes me an apology


Depending upon definitions, "Mithril" can be defined in a coherent, consistent manner. Depending upon the the formulation, "Mithril" exists or doesn't

am I making a claim about the existance of mithril?

archibald wrote:Oh you and your silly ideas. Whatever next, perpetual phlogiston?

How does it feel to be an atheist as unpopular as a theist like me, here? That must be weird. I mean, it must be like finding a Manchester City fan in the Stretford-End who'd you much rather be there than some very fucking annoying ManU supporter, even as a ManU fan.

Have a fucking word with yourself, not just your retarded mindset.

I honestly had no idea that you were a theist.

scott1328 wrote:...am I making a claim about the existance of mithril?

It's hard to tell. Are you? If so, please lay out the case. If you're not going to do that for free will, maybe you'll do it for something else, at least.

jamest wrote:
Have a fucking word with yourself, not just your retarded mindset.

I hardly think that's the sort of thing Jesus would have wanted you to say.

archibald wrote:I honestly had no idea that you were a theist.

I honestly don't believe a fucking thing that you say any more. It's got to that point. I don't put up with shit, especially in the philosophy forum, where truth is paramount. I'm making a stand.

I will risk my frail membership here to get you to stfu or amend your ways. Sincerely.

archibald wrote:I honestly had no idea that you were a theist.

Don't fucking lie to me, you ****

romansh wrote:

scott1328 wrote:lies and misrepresentation. Another of your modes of argument

Do you or do you not believe in perpetual motion?

Bump

jamest wrote:I mean, it must be like finding a Manchester City fan in the Stretford-End who'd you much rather be there than some very fucking annoying ManU supporter, even as a ManU fan.

scott1328 wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2525770.html

This is the post that Romansh is mis remembering.

So here is a demonstration how Romansh owes me an apology


Depending upon definitions, "Mithril" can be defined in a coherent, consistent manner. Depending upon the the formulation, "Mithril" exists or doesn't

am I making a claim about the existence of mithril?

It’s my position (I’m not claiming to speak for Scott1328) that “free will” has different meanings in different contexts, like many English words and phrases.

If it’s being used to mean ultimate freedom from physical causation, then free will almost certainly doesn’t exist.
For example, from dictionary.com here, the first British dictionary definition for free will is, I think, this ultimate freedom:

noun
1.
the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism (sense 1)

If “free will” is being used in the legal and social sense, where responsibility for actions is being assigned, then I think it can be compatible with determinism, and may reasonably be taken to exist for practical purposes, while being complex, vague and shifting, like much of human social behaviour.
Quoting again from dictionary.com here, the second British dictionary definition for free will is:

noun
2.
the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him.

To say that someone is or is not coerced or influenced by another person is not to make any claims about ultimate freedom from physical causation. When “free will” is being used in this way, it’s compatible with determinism, and it seems to me that it exists for practical purposes.

zoon wrote:
If it’s being used to mean ultimate freedom from physical causation, then free will almost certainly doesn’t exist.

If if doesn't denote something 'ultimate', why use the same term used by other people, who do denote something 'ultimate' by it? That's just turning internet wibble into a minor culture war.

Ultimate causation is metaphysical, just like ultimate free will is. Otherwise, they're constructions as shorthand for something else that would take too much longer to say, for people who aren't very good with scientific concepts and the words we use to describe them. In the case of what you're trying to call 'causation', you could say there's a relation between the inputs and outputs of a system. You could add that this relation is empirical. Unless, of course, you're falling back on something you need to be 'ultimate'. If you can't routinely use a word without having to debate its semantics, what the fuck are you up to?

If that's not to your taste, what do you think you're denoting by 'causation'? Once you're done with that, what do you think is the non-metaphysical significance of 'free will' except a relation between inputs and outputs of a system?

People who aren't very sophisticated about either language or science tend to cling to 'free will' and 'causation' and just assume, when they say the terms can denote different things to different readers, that they've said anything smart.

zoon wrote:To say that someone is or is not coerced or influenced by another person is not to make any claims about ultimate freedom from physical causation.

Well, OK, but when somebody is coerced, we say they were coerced. Why do we have to say anything when somebody hasn't been coerced. In either case, they did what they did. Still picking away at the 'mental', are ya, zoon?