Perhaps you've had a similar experience to mine re interacting on FDR. In the period in which I realized that not all was well on the FDR boards and that Stef c.s. used dishonest techniques and that their positions were by no means as strong as they made them out to be, I started to question them which was quite liberating; I became very confident (in a good way) and open to explore all things and point out errors in argumentation in myself and others regardless of the consequences (specifically, running into conflict with FDR'ers). I felt quite untouchable.

Now amazingly something similar seems to be going on for a hardcore FDR'er, PCRS (the guy who sent the e-mail to my boss). Some time ago he started to question the free will position and now considers himself a determinist, and he has been exploring the topic freely and without fear. Today there is going to be a free will vs. determinism debate between Stef and a bunch of determinists of which PCRS is one. Because PCRS has started to ask difficult questions re free will but also re other topics, Stef has become concerned and wrote this message to PCRS:

Quote:

I've noticed that you seem to be having more difficult interactions on the board lately, is there anything going on in your personal life that might be affecting your interactions? I apologize if this is too personal, I genuinely am curious.Smile

to which PCRS confidently replied:

Quote:

If this was directed to me: Thanks for you curiosity, you don't have to apologize for getting to personal ever. I can't think of anything really different. The whole free will debate (for me) connects to the debates about miracles/religious stuff with my parents, so it defenitely has strong emotional links for me. "Don't let my new rational friends sink away in contradictions, I can't do without their support, I have to convince them, I'll debate forever, there is still hope, let's try another key to this lock". This post however was just about something I heard, I did not know an answer to and I thought I'd ask people on the board. I however got the strange sensation I walked into the ladies room from some reactions. Especially the remark by GregG:"So do you think Stef is right?" felt like their was a laser dot on my forehead. I do not particularly like that. My mind wonders of with all kinds of facts and tries out all kind of theories on their truth content, I have always been full of ideas and it is something I like about myself. I like to explore and debate them, but a feeling that one should not step out of line with party doctrine is not conducive for that. I don't mind hard critisicsm, since if I am wrong, the theory goes out of the window and we move one. There were also some really constructive reactions that helped to solve the mystery, thanks a lot for that.

And I can much relate to what he must be feeling right now. Stef seemed to imply that PCRS was having some problems in his real life that made him have 'difficult' interactions (by which Stef means that PCRS was taking positions against Stef's), but I think it's the exact opposite, namely that PCRS is going through a more or less exhilarating experience of starting to freely think for himself, regardless of the consequences, that he is feeling quite liberated and very confident.

Very cool.


btw, I think in the debate today Stef will focus on how determinism does not allow for morality because that is a problem that the determinists in question don't have a very good answer for (although I do believe there is one available) and that he will try to win the debate in that way (so trying to steer the conversation away from all the problems with the free will position)

if the debate doesn't go according to Stef's plan I doubt he will release it as a podcast, which is a shame because this is actually a podcast I would be interested in listening to (haven't listened to new FDR podcasts in a couple of months, not even to the one about LM and me, and have felt no desire to), but I do check the boards at times, more so now while writing a paper and wanting all the distraction I can get (Zebra is also helping with that!)


(i initially put this in a for-members-only section (rather than the FDR section) because I didnt want FDR'ers (PCRS, Stef or others) to see this post prior to the debate. Now that the debate is over I moved it to the FDR category)

I notice also that Stef's "curious" inquiry follows a correction of PCRS in which Stef comments, "I am not sure why you are repeating me back to myself as if it is new information."

Whether by the words of Stef himself, or by the words of his faithful followers....he always is sure to remain on his throne, that one!

the debate is over, and I feel quite vindicated in the sense that the debate turned out to be quite what I had predicted, although Stef's attack was broader than just morality and basically included all intentional concepts such as 'preference', 'correct' and so on. But at no point (I think) did Stef actually have to defend his own position. PCRS was the best debater of the three, but they basically lost it all after 7 minutes or so when Stef made them accept that in terms of causality there is no difference between a rock falling and a human being and that complexity is irrelevant here. That in itself is correct but then Stef made a subtle switch by implicitly claiming that by accepting that the determinists also implicitly accepted that there is also no difference between a falling rock and a human being when it comes to intentional concepts and that complexity here too is irrelevant. the jump from causality to intentionality is unwarranted because complexity exactly is the key difference between the rock and a human being. but Stef made the determinists believe that they had no way of denying that after they accepted that there was no difference in terms of causality. And throughout the debate they had problems climbing out of the hole that Stef dug for them.

Stef had to concede quite a few points but being the skillful debater that he is, for the unsuspecting spectator it never looked like he did because he would just accept the point of the determinists without acknowledging that right before he had exactly said the opposite, plus with the added indignation with which he did this the tone of Stef seemed to confirm that he did not have to concede points whereas he did.

the best thing to do when debating with Stef is to follow his own advice, namely to make your debating opponent explicitly concede that they 'lost' a point rather than gloss over it. Stef always does that with his opponents but his opponents rarely if ever do the same with him.

Wait, what happened?

you has to be more specific than that!

and here Stef not too subtly spits the determinists - who he debated and whose intelligence he praised just two days ago - in their faces. Quite predictable btw.

now the question is whether they'll ignore it, accept it or call Stef on it. They're at a crossroads.

I saw the debate too. I was sort of disappointed. I have been really torn over the free will vs determinism thing lately and I had hoped this debate would help clear things up.

It didn't. In my opinion it was just Stefan tying free will to their moral system, basically saying if you throw out free will you throw out morality. This does nothing to prove free will or refute determinism in my opinion.

...these people came to debate Stefan without a compatiblist argument, and without being comfortable with believing that morality is incoherent? That's not a debate, it's an execution.

For future reference, here's how to approach a debate with Stefan about determinism:

1) In Stefan's book on UPB, he argues that all things in the universe operate according to immutable physical laws.

2) Choice is a phenomenon which occurs in the universe.

3) Therefore by Stefan's own argument, choice operates according to immutable physical laws. This is determinism.

"But if determinism is true, then there can be no morality!"

4) If morality requires that choice not operate according to immutable physical laws, then by Stefan's own argument, there can be no morality.

5) If morality can accommodate choice operating according to immutable physical laws, then it is not true that if determinism is true, then there can be no morality. This is compatiblism.

By his own arguments, Stefan is committed to determinism. The only question left is whether he's a compatiblist or an anti-moralist.

Sounds good to me, compatiblist. I'm a compatiblist too.

[Stef hat on]but we can directly observe our own choices, our own free will. Sure, we don't know how this is accomplished in nature, but there are so many things that we don't know about processes in nature yet, while nature also shows that often the sum is greater than its parts. So we don't know yet how free will is produced, but that doesn't at all mean we know that it does not exist. In fact, our direct experience contradicts such a statement.

[/Stef hat on][/quote]

Sounds like the argument for intelligent design

Ha! That's the guy who called LiMi a stalking hellhole of human misery.

Quite the contrary. I got quite a kick out of this little debate!