Alphicans
Smash Hero
What a tragedy!!! Arcansi was mislead, HOW TERRIBLE
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I could go into the nature of implication and what it means for conversation but I won't.he's not responsible for how you interpret his statement. his statement was 100% truth.
you attached your own assumptions to it, and arrived at an illogical conclusion. you have no one to blame but yourself.
^_^
I don't think dualism can account for anything since it's bogus. There is a pretty standard and compelling argument (which you are aware of I assume) that dualism can't account for "free will", no matter what is meant by that, because that would require some way for the mind to send instructions to the body, which would would require physical events (in the brain presumably) to be caused by something non-physical, which essentially means there's no cause in the physical world, so there's a cause without an effect. Alternatively, it could mean that the non-physical thing is really just physical.On that note:
Who can account for freewill better: physicalists or dualists? ***** of a question that will be on my phil final
I guess the thing about "free will" discussions is that it's largely about how you define free will. I've never really understood how there's any substance to the self as 4D thing. It seems purely linguistic, but it still seems consistent with free will if you think of free will as the condition of things you do being caused primarily by things internal to you rather than external. As in, define "free will" such that an action is done out of free will if the cause is primarily some brain activity internal to the agent. Obviously that definition makes the whole thing trivial, but so does some definition like "there are several possible things you could do", because that just makes it trivially false rather than trivially true. I feel like I miss something in the free will debates because it all seems very trivial and linguistic, rather than substantiative.The thing about dualism is that it's not necessarily an alternative explanation for how humans are thought to be in the world, but as something to account for personal identity. Physicalism has a tough time accounting for personal identity, and the explanations they do have are iffy at best.
I am well aware of the non-physical physical interactions being speculative, but the purpose of this question, I think, is to by pass that, and see what both ideologies can make of the question. The best explanation that physicalism offers (that accounts for personal identity) is 4-D physicalism, which definitely does not allow for free will. However, on the other hand I am not sure how dualism could account for free will at all.
I will if people go and bring setups and stuff.Who wants to play at the venue tomorrow!?