Are all mediums con artists then?

[CFLarsen]

No, because you fail to understand anything no matter how simply I put it.

Has anyone ever understood anything you said, no matter how simply you put it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Has anyone ever understood anything you said, no matter how simply you put it?

Even when I take my time and explain as simply as possible it certainly seems true that skeptics don't appear to understand me. I don't think non-skeptics have these difficulties.

I've pasted in a bit from my forthcoming website explaining what free will is in this very thread. Do you and other skeptics on here not understand it? If so there's absolutely nothing I can do about that since I've took the trouble to explain it as simply as I possibly could.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ian, your opinions and ideas are extremely naive. For crying out loud. Think about it, are we ALL really stupid, or maybe we simply see your ideas as something of little importance?

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

 

[Rasmus]

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

Do you hoenstly have the impression, that he would benefit from that? Thus far, the impression I get is that he is not capable of understanding the most basic form of logical argument. that is something I would view as a requirement for enrolling at a university.

Rasmus.

 

[Hastur]

If just one person reads my contributions and thinks, "well he's really passionate about these issues, maybe there is a grain of truth in what he says. Maybe what the skeptics say is not so straightforwardly obvious after all".

Appeal to emotion

If it raises a question of doubt regarding the skeptical/materialist Weltanschauung, then that is surely to be desired.

Except this is not a court of law; reasonable doubt does not cut it. If you want to show that this supposed gri-gris we share is wrong, you're going to have to prove you have a better methodology. Better wo/men than you have tried and failed.

What exactly do you mean by a claim? I've certainly made no assertions about anything. That's more in the habit of my opponents. Are beliefs a claim?

If you're saying that the world works according to your beliefs and, ergo, our worldview is wrong, you're darn right you're making a claim.

 

[CFLarsen]

Even when I take my time and explain as simply as possible it certainly seems true that skeptics don't appear to understand me. I don't think non-skeptics have these difficulties.

I've pasted in a bit from my forthcoming website explaining what free will is in this very thread. Do you and other skeptics on here not understand it? If so there's absolutely nothing I can do about that since I've took the trouble to explain it as simply as I possibly could.

So, skeptics are simply incapable of understanding your simple wit?

 

[Ashles]

Ian, is there anything on this following list which you personally believe does not exist/really work?

Phrenology
Homeopathy
Acupuncture
Alien visitations
Aliens creating crop circles
Pyrokinesis
Atlantis
Leprechauns
Invisible Pink Unicorns

It's a serious question.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, your opinions and ideas are extremely naive. For crying out loud. Think about it, are we ALL really stupid, or maybe we simply see your ideas as something of little importance?

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

Eh? I've already got a degree in philosophy. I only got a 2:1 though, but that was because of the ethics module which I only got a 2:2 in. That dragged my final grade down to a 2:1. Otherwise I would have got a first. I got firsts in the modules philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, and the empiricists.

And that was years ago. The amount of knowledge and understanding I had then was small compared to now.

I assure you that I'm certainly sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently competent to do this website. Indeed I'm giving serious consideration to expanding it into a book. Hopefully it will be very successful.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, because you fail to understand anything no matter how simply I put it.

That's because you're describing beliefs, which are necessarily mushy and vague. If the ideas were more concrete, they would almost certainly involve evidence.

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it. You simply say it's your will to do something, with no mechanistic underpinnings. There's no content. There is nothing to grok, nothing to understand, nothing to turn about in my head and study. I would be a lying fool if I said I understood that. I could say I believed it, but I don't happen to.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

That's because you're describing beliefs, which are necessarily mushy and vague. If the ideas were more concrete, they would almost certainly involve evidence.

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it.

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

You simply say it's your will to do something, with no mechanistic underpinnings. There's no content. There is nothing to grok, nothing to understand, nothing to turn about in my head and study.

Well there indeed is very little to understand. And there's no need for you to study it.

Free will is very easy to understand -- a 5 year old understands it. Reconciling it with the idea that the whole world is described by physical laws is the problem.

I have absolutely no idea what you fail to understand about free will.

 

[CFLarsen]

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it.

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

Thus is the thinking of Ian. He doesn't need to explain at all!

 

[drkitten]

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

Free will is very easy to understand -- a 5 year old understands it. Reconciling it with the idea that the whole world is described by physical laws is the problem.

Indeed, most forms of magic are very easy to understand. You wave your wand, and the frog turns into a prince. And that's why most people above the age of 5 reject the idea of magic that does not require -- or indeed, permit -- any form of explanation.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Indeed, most forms of magic are very easy to understand. You wave your wand, and the frog turns into a prince. And that's why most people above the age of 5 reject the idea of magic that does not require -- or indeed, permit -- any form of explanation.

No. They reject it because it doesn't appear to work.

 

[Ashles]

No. They reject it because it doesn't appear to work.

But it does appear to work - that's exactly the point. It appears to work even to adults.

They eventually reject it because they become aware that there are other explanations for how the tricks are done. And the explanations for magic tricks are often far more complex and unexpected than the mundane explanations for paranormal phenomena.

Yet people do not reject paranormal phenomena in the same way.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

Well, now you've done gone and shot yourself in the foot. I would be perfectly happy if you said mental causality is equivalent to physical causality, because then I could just assume they were two names for the same thing. But you say "free mental causality exists," which is an oxymoron. Materialists do not deny a mechanism connecting one physical event to another, but you deny a mechanism connecting mental events to decisions.

I have absolutely no idea what you fail to understand about free will.

I do not understand how mental events lead to decision making. I do not understand by what processes my will is formed.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, now you've done gone and shot yourself in the foot. I would be perfectly happy if you said mental causality is equivalent to physical causality, because then I could just assume they were two names for the same thing. But you say "free mental causality exists," which is an oxymoron.

Since I do not even understand what "free mental causality" is I can confidently state that I certainly did not say this.

How does "free mental causality" differ from "non-free mental causality"?

Materialists do not deny a mechanism connecting one physical event to another, but you deny a mechanism connecting mental events to decisions.

That's not the issue. You can say that you can specify a mechanism whereby "z" results from "a" by "a" causing "b", and "b" causing "c" . . . etc. But you cannot expect an answer by asking how "a" causes "b" (eg how does a billiard ball move after another impacts on it). Physical causality simply exists. You're simply confused when you ask what is the mechanism whereby causality works. It's a basic existent whether we have in mind physical causality, or mental causality. There is no mechanism. It's just the way the world is. And if we have free will then that's just the way the world is.

I do not understand how mental events lead to decision making.

Through you consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.

I do not understand by what processes my will is formed.

By the dictates of the self.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wow, I was about to answer. But whats the point? This is truly amazing.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How does "free mental causality" differ from "non-free mental causality"?

Same way "libertarian free will" differs from "compatibilist free will," so you had better tell me. As I said, I don't understand it.

That's not the issue. You can say that you can specify a mechanism whereby "z" results from "a" by "a" causing "b", and "b" causing "c" . . . etc. But you cannot expect an answer by asking how "a" causes "b" (eg how does a billiard ball move after another impacts on it). Physical causality simply exists. You're simply confused when you ask what is the mechanism whereby causality works. It's a basic existent whether we have in mind physical causality, or mental causality. There is no mechanism. It's just the way the world is. And if we have free will then that's just the way the world is.

I said I would agree that "mental causality simply exists," too. But you're using this causality as an excuse to avoid all the complexity concerning how mental monism operates.

Scientists assume randomness or unexplained causality for some very low-level constructs, such as the quantum vacuum, momentum, spin, and so forth. From this they build theories to explain the "macro" behavior of the world. If you would like to postulate some equivalent low-level constructs for mental monism, be my guest. But then you have to do all the work you're avoiding by effectively calling your entire metaphysic an axiom. You have to explain how these low-level constructs lead to the Metamind, individual minds, free will, telekinesis, the appearance of the external world on my senses, the consistency of the external world between minds, the coherency of a free-floating soul, etc.

Why does adopting a mental monism free you from doing the hard scientific work of explaining the mind? Apparently, simply because you want it to.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Through your consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.

Here is an example of how you're avoiding the hard work. This is equivalent to neurophysiologist saying "Through your consciousness initiating events in other parts of the brain via neural connections" as the sum total of his explanation of decision making behavior. It's vapid, content-free, and uninteresting. It's proof by drawing a blank.

~~ Paul

 

[Jeff Corey]

Since I do not even understand what "free mental causality" is I can confidently state that I certainly did not say this....
{And later in the same post}
...Through you consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.
By the dictates of the self.

Boy am I really looking forward to not reading a website with tons of gibberish like this on it.
And you called us morons, stupid, etc.