Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,292,000 Posts!
REGISTER
Subscribe to FTR web feed
Poker Forum › FTR Community ›

Your Aversion To Determinism Is Itself Predetermined

Results 1 to 31 of 31

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. 03-03-2018 01:42 PM #1
    boost's Avatar
    boost
    boost is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Quite the opposite.
    I'm a bit confused. Everything that follows seems to back up my claim that we lack agency. Did I miss a double negative somewhere?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  
  2. 03-03-2018 01:52 PM #2
    Poopadoop's Avatar
    Poopadoop
    Poopadoop is offline
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    11,445
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I'm a bit confused. Everything that follows seems to back up my claim that we lack agency. Did I miss a double negative somewhere?
    I think he's saying 'if we could show probabilistic events were affected by agency, we could prove agency' or something like that. So, we could prove agency in theory.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  
  3. 03-03-2018 03:55 PM #3
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    MadMojoMonkey
    MadMojoMonkey is offline AINT SHOVELING SHIT
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I'm a bit confused. Everything that follows seems to back up my claim that we lack agency. Did I miss a double negative somewhere?
    The sense I meant it is "no obvious place to rest the claim [...]" should be replaced with "indication [...] is not the case."

    It's poorly worded. I almost changed it days ago, but no one was calling me out on it, so I guessed that it wasn't as misleading as I was reading it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  
  4. 03-03-2018 09:11 PM #4
    boost's Avatar
    boost
    boost is offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,278
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    The sense I meant it is "no obvious place to rest the claim [...]" should be replaced with "indication [...] is not the case."

    It's poorly worded. I almost changed it days ago, but no one was calling me out on it, so I guessed that it wasn't as misleading as I was reading it.
    The metaphor of a claim resting on a foundation of evidence is pretty standard, no? But yeah, I suppose I could have been a lot clearer.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  
  5. 03-04-2018 02:07 AM #5
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    MadMojoMonkey
    MadMojoMonkey is offline AINT SHOVELING SHIT
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,456
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    The metaphor of a claim resting on a foundation of evidence is pretty standard, no? But yeah, I suppose I could have been a lot clearer.
    Your wording was fine. It was mine that I was criticizing.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules