[MD] Free Will

[Steven Peterson]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:28 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> dmb said to Steve:
> My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are both real because both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever that's supposed to mean, don't have anything to do with it. I would accuse you of misconstruing my position but that would be too generous. You're just making stuff up,.. [and later] I accused you of inventing the omniscient super-being, the one that supposedly keeps me and James awake at night. If you make stuff up instead of disagreeing with the things I actually said, then isn't fair to say your tactics have spoiled the conversation? I think it's more than fair.
>
>
>
> Steve said:
> I know full well and never said that DMb believes in an omniscient superbeing. My point of course is that I can't see why anyone who does not believe in such a being would think predetermination is a real issue.
>
> dmb says:
> Okay, so it's NOT that I'm kept awake at night worrying about an omniscient super-being. Now my problem is taking predetermination too seriously?

Steve:
I don't know about "now" since you now obviously object to the notion
that predetermination is a problem for you, but that is indeed what I
meant when I said it originally. If not predetermination, then what
about the free will/determinism issue keeps you and James awake at
night?


dmb:
> That's unbelievable. You're forcing me to argue about the argument again. I've never even mentioned such a doctrine, except to mock it or dismiss it and I remember doing both in recent exchanges with you.
> I accuse you of making stuff up and how do you respond? By making up more stuff.

Steve:
I'm not making anything up. That's really what I meant.

dmb:
I accused you of evading what has actually been said AND then sent a
scholarly Jamesian analysis of the issue three pages long. And how do
you respond? You just switch to another ridiculous theological
doctrine and put that on me instead. This is unreasonable and it seems
deliberately designed to spoil the possibility of any real
conversation. It's careless and sloppy, at best, and more probably
intentionally malicious.

Steve:
I didn't switch to anything. That's what I meant all along.


dmb:
> Your tactics continue to be bogus, Mr. Peterson. My complaints don't seem to have any effect. Maybe I should just adopt your tactics instead. You know, if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Maybe it's not as empty, nihilistic and soul-murdering as it looks and I've been missing out on all the fun. Do I need to sign up to join the club or can I just start making stuff up immediately?

Steve:
Here's an idea: you could try not to be such a dick.