It seems to have completely slipped your mind (which, I suppose, we could regard as proof of the fallibility of memory…but that’s an argument for another time) that it was you who asserted with nothing more than epileptic hand waving that there is no such thing as free will
Yep. And that assertion stands unless you can present evidence of the existence of free will.
Of course, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you don't understand the difference between negative and positive claims. Just one more thing on the long, long list of things that you don't understand in the least.
contrary to the explicit understanding of just about every major philosophical and religious tradition on the planet
No, you haven't. You've asserted that your six or seven billion "examples" are evidence of free will. You haven't even begun to actually show that they are.
You haven’t even bothered to argue your case (I doubt you even could but that’s academic).
It depends on how you define "choose". Subjectively, I think I am choosing. Objectively, my "choices" are just the result of the chemical reactions in my brain.
Let me get this straight…something does not exist until we have a coherent definition of it. Wow…by that logic (just for example) the quantum universe did not exist until around about the time Einstein showed up. God only knows how things operated before then.
But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist?
Better tell that to the folks in the good old US of A cause their entire constitution is founded on that very principle. Come to think of it, just about every liberal democracy in the world includes the understanding of free will as a fundamental guiding principle in their charters and constitutions. And it doesn’t exist!!!! What a bunch of fools!
….the barest of assertions…a single word. So who’s the one slinging bare assertions about dude?
It seems to have completely slipped your mind (which, I suppose, we could regard as proof of the fallibility of memory…but that’s an argument for another time) that it was you who asserted with nothing more than epileptic hand waving that there is no such thing as free will
Yep. And that assertion stands unless you can present evidence of the existence of free will.
Of course, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you don't understand the difference between negative and positive claims. Just one more thing on the long, long list of things that you don't understand in the least.
Let me get this straight…again…you make this extraordinary claim and provide nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to substantiate it….but unless I can prove you wrong your massively unsubstantiated bare assertion is somehow valid. You do know what that’s called don’t you….but then again, maybe you don’t (let me give you a hint...flying spaghetti monster).
contrary to the explicit understanding of just about every major philosophical and religious tradition on the planet
Yeah, I forgot….Dan Dennet is an idiot. Argent, who’s provided nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to dismiss the foundation of human identity for a substantial portion of the world’s population is obviously the intelligent one in this debate.
I have provided six or seven billion examples of it
No, you haven't. You've asserted that your six or seven billion "examples" are evidence of free will. You haven't even begun to actually show that they are.
In any other situation this would be regarded as a massive excuse. But this is JREF. No evidence for free will. Lets see…the charter/constitution of every liberal democracy in the world. All include free will as a foundational principle. Hegel, Kant, Plato, Descartes, Hume etc. etc….all have argued one way or another in support of free will. Virtually all the worlds major religious traditions include free will as a foundational principle in one form or another.
….buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, they must all be wrong because Argent has come to the conclusion that there is all but nothing to argue against. Or maybe Argent just doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
All you’ve produced is a half-empty wiki page to support your claim.
...apparently not. But then again, maybe that's all that someone deserves who dismisses outright the foundational identity principle for the majority of the worlds population with nothing more than a scatter-brained wiki page link.
It depends on how you define "choose". Subjectively, I think I am choosing. Objectively, my "choices" are just the result of the chemical reactions in my brain.
Argent at the alter: "...sure I'll marry you, but in reality I'm really not...and BTW...death doesn't yet exist since we have yet to coherently define it so we'll have to part before then...if I can somehow choose not to choose that I'm leaving from somewhere that doesn't exist...but I do anyway...but that wasn't me who said that...blame the chemicals...they love you, not me..."
…you do realize that you are dangerously close to defining yourself as a p-zombie (with a special name). I wouldn’t let it bother you though. Your position never had the slightest substance in the first place. Personally, when I choose I don’t stand around for ten minutes trying to figure out how to define what I’m doing or whether or not there even is a definition (because, in, fact, there, isn't!). Most folks are the same. Maybe you’re not. P-zombie then.
….curious though….what exactly is this ‘reality’ in which you don’t actually choose? As far as I know, reality is yet to be coherently defined…and therefore, by one of Argents many rules of warped logic, must not yet exist. You aren’t a woo are you? Y’know…you believe in something that doesn’t actually exist. Mind you, you do have a history of extraordinary claims and multitudes of bare assertions. Very woo-like.
Seriously Argent, I’d suggest you quit while you’re behind. If not maybe you should go see a doctor about that foot-mouth thing.
Let me get this straight…again…you make this extraordinary claim and provide nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to substantiate it….but unless I can prove you wrong your massively unsubstantiated bare assertion is somehow valid.
Essentially, yes. I would take the time to explain why, but I really don't care enough to give you a crash-course in fundamental logic. If you actually wanted to understand it, you would have bothered to look it up before you posted here. As it is, I see no reason to help you. Not only do you not know, you don't want to know, and anything I did to try and explain it to you would just be wasted effort.
No, actually it’s called basic confirmation theory. Something you don’t seem to be too familiar with.
Argent, who’s provided nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to dismiss the foundation of human identity for a substantial portion of the world’s population is obviously the intelligent one in this debate.
if I can somehow choose not to choose that I'm leaving from somewhere that doesn't exist...but I do anyway...but that wasn't me who said that...blame the chemicals...they love you, not me..."
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.
Or you could actually try responding to what I post rather than running away.
You know, you could just admit that you don't have any evidence. It would make you look much less foolish than your continued arrogance and feigned superiority.
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.
I, on the other hand, have marshaled the evidence of every democracy in the world, every religion, and a phalanx of the most respected minds who have ever thunk a thought.
I called you on your misleading Google search minutes after you did it. I'm not terribly surprised you continue to bandy about your laughable search results as some kind of evidence in support of the idea that humans have free will.
….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you choose how your life proceeds or not? If you choose, for example, to have a child…does that ‘action’ in and of itself constitute a meaningful definition of the vocabulary of reality or not? Newsflash dude….we don’t define the world, it defines us.
So.. we can add the word "word" to the list of.. words you don't understand? There's a zen koan here, somewhere.
But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist? That you no longer get to decide who you’ll be? What a massive load of absolute garbage!
Sure, I get to decide certain things. However, that only holds true for definitions of "decide" that don't invoke a nonexistent aspect -that of free will. The definitions that do are also meaningless.
But of course…all I have are bare assertions. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you consider yourself nothing more than a bare assertion?
Do you…or do you not, choose? It's a blindingly simple question. Do you have the ability to answer it?
Blindingly simple questions are, quite often, poorly defined - as is the case here. And yes - that makes the question meaningless.
But it occurs to me that you probably just don't really understand what is meant by "meaningless" here, so let me help you.
Words are tools humans use to communicate ideas. They are sounds or strings of characters that represent an idea, making it possible to share thoughts on these ideas.
However, in order for this to work well, there must be a consistent and shared definition of what ideas the words are supposed to represent. In the case of corporeal, everyday things, such as cats or dogs, it's a fairly easily satisfied condition - although it is important that everyone present speaks the same language - for example, the English "Die, Cat" and the German "Die Katze" seem very similiar, but have very different meanings.
But even with a common language, things get more difficult when we're talking about ideas that don't refer to real, existing things. Love, god, evil, delicious and such, for example. Different people mean different things with these words - in other words, they don't have a clear definition.
In everyday conversation, these words can still be used. However, once we enter into logic, we really run in to trouble. In logic, it's not enough to just provide a vague idea of what you mean - you have to have a sound, understandable statement. And that's only possible if all the terms used are well-defined.
When those terms are not defined, that means they do not actually refer to any single thing. Especially with contested terms like "free will", accurate definitions are vitally important. It's ridiculous to suggest one should believe something like that exists, despite having no coherent definition for the phenomenon. Although I do realize this is the only tool at your disposal, I really believe you would be better off without it.
So yes - since you can't define "free will" - in your case, even inadequately - any claims you make about it's existence are meaningless. It's just another god - something that makes no sense, shows no sign of existing, that you just "feel in your heart" must be there - and proceed to attack anyone who questions it.
I have written more on the subject on the forums in the past, but I'm sure you aren't interested in reading long-winded post with actual arguments instead of insults. I look forward to your next post filled with assertions and insults. Do try to make the most of your time until your inevitable ban.
Edited to correct member's name. Do not change another Member's username in order to insult.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
...no, of course not Robin. There could not possibly be a single thing that could confirm the existence of free will. I mentioned that essay by Attran before...you really should read it.
I could not find where you mentioned the name of the essay by Scott Atran, could you let me know.
How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.
So when you say free will, you mean that our conscious intentions can be significant proximate causes of our actions - yes?
In which case I completely agree and would point out that free will of that variety is perfectly compatible with Materialism.
Brains are physical objects in a physical Universe and as such can have an effect within that Universe.
It may come as a real shock to some of you but just because we do not have the ability to define or quantify something does not mean it does not exist.
No, but it does mean that you need a coherent definition before you can say that it exists. Wow…by that logic (just for example) the quantum universe did not exist until around about the time Einstein showed up. God only knows how things operated before then.
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.
Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>
Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>
Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
