= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Newcomb versus dust specks - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (104)
By "heard of", do you actually mean "agree with"?
No, I meant that you seemed confused by the fact that someone can think of 'predetermination' as compatible with choice, to the point that you seemingly felt that saying "your decision is predetermined and you have no choice in the matter" was an argument.. and you "don't see" how such predetermined choices are real choices.
It's fine if you state your position, but you bring confusion when you present it in terms of ignorance and failure to understand the other one's position.
Basically you spoke like I'd expect someone to speak who had indeed never heard of compatibilism, not merely disagreed with it.
I was not trying to change entirelyuseless' mind. I was trying to figure out where exactly the disagreements between us are.
No, I do not see that. Is there anything wrong with that?
LOL. Are you quite sure I am allowed to disagree with compatibilism for reasons other than being a confused ignorant fool?
Well, you speak like someone who does not understand why people could possibly disagree with compatibilism.
Look, say whatever you like, I was genuinely, truly, sincerely, honestly not able to distinguish you from someone who hadn't even heard of compatibilism.
Feel free to mock and jeer and lol as you like, but take nonetheless this datapoint into consideration, about what you were communicating to me.
If you think that's a problem, you probably should fix it :-) Or at least take this datapoint into consideration :-P
Actually, I was having a reasonable conversation with entirelyuseless when you jumped in and sneered at that "sort of people", those uncough peasants whose presence pollutes the rarefied air of LW with crass ignorance...
Well, see, you understood I was sneering at you.
I on the other hand, still don't understand whether you were pretending at ignorance of compatibilism as a weird debating tactic ("1. Pretend that I don't know there exist people who think determinism is compatible with free will, 2. ??? 3.Profit!") or I just misread you that way.
Saying "But Bud Light is a bad beer" is not "pretending at ignorance" that there are people who like and drink Bud Light. It expresses my position which, absent other indicators, does NOT imply that all other positions are wrong and mistaken.
Speaking in expressions like "Bud Light is a bad beer, however I acknowledge the existence of people who like Bud Light and accept that there is nothing inherently wrong with them liking Bud Light and, moreover, the expression of my position should not be taken as disparagement of those aforementioned people who like Bud Light" is a bit unwieldy.