Spot on. He's correct in that math is absolute in its precision, but it's still no more than an abstraction of what's actually going on. More importantly, our cognition is simply not good enough to intuitively comprehend a mathematical description of a highly complex entity or process. Like, it's totally possible to describe a table in purely mathematical terms, but even if you manage to compute that, good luck trying to convey it to other people without using language as a crutch.

And to take it a step further, our ability to use symantic languages is actually one of the main reasons why we're so good at maths. We wouldn't be able to handle anything more than basic algebra and geometry etc. if not for the fact that languages allow us to abstract complex concepts into very simple symbols. Remember that we developed written languages long before we ever considered using algebraic expressions as a mathematical notation. For the longest time, mathematicians relied almost entirely on geometry and vectors to describe mathematics, with a bit of help from symantic languages.

I absolutely agree that many folks were far too militant about this, but to be fair, we were living through (and perhaps still are) a potential existential crisis, and most of the folks on the other side ranged from highly irresponsible to batshit insane.

In regards to the lab leak hypothesis, I'm no expert, but based on my personal research, it does seem to have way more merit than the mainstream opinion would lead you to believe, but at the time, investigating it wasn't as important as handling the crisis itself.

As for natural immunity, yes, it turned out to be more effective in most ways, but it obviously poses a much higher risk. Also, taking the vaccine in addition to natural immunity proved to be the best option, so it's a very poor excuse for rallying against the vaccine.

I agree with your overall point in regards to the value of free speech, but the devil is in the details.

I indeed did jump to conclusions and may have ended up misconstruing you, as a result. I did say that it was a guess, though.

If that is the case, feel free to clarify your side of the argument.

All good, I thought as much - but figured I'd clarify just be to be sure.

I can't speak on behalf of this particular person, but the point I'm making is that, most of the covid naysayers have been leaning on the fact that they were right about a thing or two (for all the wrong reasons, of course) to act vindictive and push their agenda, in standard bad faith-fueled conspiracy theorist fashion.

The vaccines and lockdowns weren't quite as effective as we had hoped, nor quite as necessary as we had initially feared, so it must then follow that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

That would be his implication, if I had to take a guess.

I see where you are coming from and find your premise to be mostly agreeable. I just don't see how calling it free will is helpful, when there is nothing free about it.

To follow up on your example, if I'm truly convinced that the decision to use the drug was the less desirable option, and I still used it anyway, that would imply that I felt forced by an outside source. I would not even view that as a choice that I made. What is more likely, though, is that using the drug was always my real desire, regardless of the stories that I tell myself to feel better about my own depravity. In this latter case, it's just a slightly trickier version of the free will illusion. This storyline, more often than not, comes off as textbook self-deception.

But let's say it's not self-deception, instead sticking with your original proposition. From my viewpoint - as the drug abuser - the illusion of free will was never present to begin with. I never felt like I had a choice to make, I just acted on pure impulse as a result of my addiction. I may still experience regret and feel responsibile for my inability to resist the urges, but it's not unheard of for people to take responsibility of an act that they never had any agency over to begin with. One morbid example of this is how rape victims often blame themselves for not acting otherwise, even though they fully know that their agency was severely diminished by uncontrollable circumstances.

In either case, there is no genuine free will to experience, but the latter case features the illusion of it, when as with the former, one just immediately admits that it was never there to begin with. So, why call it free will at all? If we must make a distinction between the two scenarios, we could use words like "will" or "desire" without pretending that freedom plays any part in it. My main problem with compatibilism has always been its potentiality to reinforce the layman concept of free will. I think it's more conducive to abolish the term entirely, and instead use new terminology when nuance is required. "Free will" carries far too much baggage.

Edit: I said I wouldn't get into this rabbit hole in the other comment chain, and yet here I am irresistibly at it again. That's fairly amusing, considering the subject at hand haha. Certainly hope my comment makes at least a bit of sense to you, after all that.

I could attempt to marshal a reply, but I know that we'll just continue to talk over each other, when we are in fact 99.98% in agreement. Neither of us will concede that last 0.02%, so we might as well save our energy and move on.

However, I do owe you an apology for my less than polite tone, so might as well attach it here. That was unnecessary.

> I didn't say "identifies". You're still thinking of it as a decision in the traditional sense. No such thing is happening. People are just being, and if they believe that what they are doing is in line with what they'd like to do, then they have agency. It's not circular at all. Nobody is deciding they have agency, they just have it.

I believe that I misinterpreted your comment. I see that you are drawing a distinction between what people want and what they actually do. I think you are agreeing that this distinction is an illusion, because you can't possibly do anything other than what you want. Since we are unable to choose what we want, it's ultimately a distinction without a difference, but your point still stands. That's a valid definition.

> You'll have to explain what you mean by the second paragraph as it's not clear what you're asking exactly.

I figured you were defending libertarian free will, but since you appear to be a compatibilist, I guess there is nothing to reconcile. There's no distinction between compatibilism and no free will, as far as our first person experience is concerned. I think our disagreement lies solely in the semantics and the practical implications of said semantics, not in the physical mechanics of 'free will'.

> He doesn't understand that his conception of free will is a layman's conception, and that philosophers have long ditched that.

Hate to say it, but you need to actually look into his stuff before spewing such nonsense. One of his main complaints is that compatibilists arbitrarily redefine free will. He feels that this counterproductive.

Philosophers don't [always] philosophise just for the sake of philosophising. In the case of free will, the practical outcome of the conversation is of paramount importance.

That's a circular definition, isn't it? There has to be an objective definition, else the word simply does not mean anything. You can't just say that an agent is someone who identifies as an agent.

Also, it's not particularly difficult to directly experience your lack of free will with simple thought experiments. Practices such as meditation break the spell even further. How do you reconcile that?

How the fuck is Nietzsche a good substitute for Stoicism. Like, you could at least suggested something remotely reasonable.

Nietzsche is great, but you never go full Nietzsche.

Oh, I get you now. I assumed this part was already clear, but you are right to point it out for those who weren't aware that it's a name.

Generally speaking, any name of Arabic origin has some meaning behind it. 'Just a name' is not really a thing over here, except for names which predate the Arabic language.