Why even bother with statements of “could have if” in a deterministic environment?
Because part of the way to make sense of causality is the use of such statements. And without causality there is no naturalistic way to speak about determinism.
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
Then why did you do away your ‘Socratic avatar’? I liked it.
I don’t recall having a “Socratic avatar.” Not intentionally anyways. My previous avatar was just a different picture of me. I updated it to relatively newer pic.
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
Then why did you do away your ‘Socratic avatar’? I liked it.
I don’t recall having a “Socratic avatar.” Not intentionally anyways. My previous avatar was just a different picture of me. I updated it to relatively newer pic.
Am I confusing you with somebody else? Didn’t you have once a very classical man with a beard, looking to the right, as avatar?
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
Then why did you do away your ‘Socratic avatar’? I liked it.
I don’t recall having a “Socratic avatar.” Not intentionally anyways. My previous avatar was just a different picture of me. I updated it to relatively newer pic.
Am I confusing you with somebody else? Didn’t you have once a very classical man with a beard, looking to the right, as avatar?
Yes, you must have me confused with somebody else. I am much better looking.
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
Then why did you do away your ‘Socratic avatar’? I liked it.
I don’t recall having a “Socratic avatar.” Not intentionally anyways. My previous avatar was just a different picture of me. I updated it to relatively newer pic.
Am I confusing you with somebody else? Didn’t you have once a very classical man with a beard, looking to the right, as avatar?
Yes, you must have me confused with somebody else. I am much better looking.
But somehow they don’t seem to realise that most people don’t and it is a problem. This philosophy does make a difference, I expect it is to you and your relationships.
I do realise it. Why do you think I don’t?
OK I accept that. You’re very much like Dennett, the emphasis is very much on the freedom we do have (very important) but very little on the other free will people generally believe in and what damage believing in it might do.
Ideally I’d like to see Dennett deal with both more. In his response to Bruce Waller, he said we can’t be “guilty in gods eyes” i.e can’t be ultimately responsible and “good ridence to that” or (something similar) but that’s about all you get and then it’s back to compatibilism.
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
Then why did you do away your ‘Socratic avatar’? I liked it.
I don’t recall having a “Socratic avatar.” Not intentionally anyways. My previous avatar was just a different picture of me. I updated it to relatively newer pic.
Am I confusing you with somebody else? Didn’t you have once a very classical man with a beard, looking to the right, as avatar?
Yes, you must have me confused with somebody else. I am much better looking.
GdB is right. You did have an avatar like that.
Wow, that was a long time ago. I’m surprised you both remember. Even I forgot, until you insisted and I just now went looking for what it could have been. I think I found it.
Exactly, as George said. It was a (detail of a) painting. Who is it, morgantj?
In that case, I don’t know which avatar you are referring to. I recently changed it to a photo of me. Previously it was a different more artistic pic of me. Currently, it is a resemblance of Socrates.
I know. “I agree, it is for clarification and understanding if nothing else.” I just have a habit of socratic questioning.
