Which, one could argue, is why free will is something we experience and not something that actually exists.


If I am reading correctly, most of what you are saying assumes indeterminism. Multi-worlds argues that the universe is deterministic (hence Alex's argument that free will cannot exist), but our experience of free will is merely a byproduct of being unable to see the future and that our "choice" was preordained.

I just don't think that a respectful and even-handed discussion about differing beliefs can take place after it's started with an insult. Pancaked or not. Did the original pancake make the situation any better when it was edited? Nor did this one.

My read is - if all possibilities exist, there really is no choice, since in any situation all decissions are made - as they play out in all these multi-verses. Granted, this possibility of a multi-verse is not something that can (at this point) be scientificly scrutinized. However, if this does describe the metaphysical reality, it still doesn't jive with the phenomenological experience of reality - of just one universe. That just made me speculate that perhaps "consciousness" (and the experience of time) is a singular experience in which "choice" is really about what part of the multi-verse to focus on next (that is I don't experience an omniscient consciousness of the multiverse). Sort of how I can have a CD of a bunch of different songs, but only listen to one at a time.

In this way Freewill still may exist as a part of phenomenological consciousness - though not in the way we might ordinarily think of it. It would be more passive in the sense that playing a CD is more like choosing what music to listen to than actually making the music.

I just don't believe that, once a mistake is made, then corrected, that the original subject should become forbidden.

We have a LOT of situations where tempers flair for various reasons. We just have to get over it, move on and prove once again that we can have civil discussions about all sorts of subjects.

Perhaps, but this is a bell that can't really be unrung. If corndiogwalker feels insulted by Alex's comments then it's perfectly acceptable for him to choose not to participate here. And if Alex wants to make any sort of amends that's up to Alex. Regarless, dicussion has continued and I don't see any value in shutting it down.

It's hard for discussions about beliefs to take place in an emotional vacuum, so perhaps a respectful even handed approach is ultimately impossible. Still I like that we try, and keep each other in check when our posts can be considered disrespectful. I don't really think anyone here wants to come off as a belligernat prick - but we all know those folks exist in the world too.

So I hope we can continue, in sincere curiosity, and perhaps earn back some of the respect we may have lost along the way.

Let's say for a moment that I was a newbie. 7 posts maybe. I post something dear to my heart and get slammed for it. Does it make me want to stay? Does it make me think people on this board are cool when they call something I love "bullsh*t"?

Probably not - but that ship has sailed. Aside from going back in time to prevent the exchange, what would you propose?

Public GC mojo.

I'm really interested in what thecorndogwalker has to say, but if I were in the same position, I wouldn't want to interact with someone who replied so rudely.

I would prefer cutting the newbies some slack from now on. Welcome them into the boat for a good number of posts, then smack 'em over the head with an oar.
;)

Maybe not, but that's what happened and it cannot be undone. So, we move on and, up to this point, the philosophical discussion has been going well.

We delve into subjects here on LoT that are banned from most other boards - especially of the Disney variety. Things will get ugly at times, but I hope we all can learn from both the seedier sides of our selves as well as from the better sides and return to having a good discussion even if there was some initial shyt smeared.