Those darned Laws Of Physics

[Franko]

If you don't know what it is, then how can you claim it doesn't exist? BTW, I have given you my definition many times, but you refuse to accept it. In order to show you evidence of free will that you will believe, I have to know how you define it.

Otherwise you are saying, "I don't know what it is, but I assure you it doesn't exist". That would be like an atheist claiming God doesn't exist, but refusing to define God.

I've asked you to define "god" on numerous occasions, You told me that you didn't need to define "god" to declare that "god" didn't exist.

Don't you remember me asking you to use your magic A-Theist powers to determine if "blitzendorf" existed or not (without a definition of "blitzendorf')?

Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Universe = a shared reality (common frame of reference) occupied by two or more entities.

Now I'll ask again, what is your definition of "free will"?

 

[hammegk]

....the term "physical" refers to interactions. ...

Stimpy, again, this is crux of your argument. What is it you say is "interacting"?

Little spheres of "matter"? I don't think so.

Energy "fields"? And what did you say an "energy field" might actually be? Why do you apriori define the composition of one to be "physical"?

Were you not discussing "definitions"? How did you say you define "energy"?

 

[Tricky]

I've asked you to define "god" on numerous occasions, You told me that you didn't need to define "god" to declare that "god" didn't exist.

You know that is untrue. I don't know why you keep saying it when every time you do I simply prove you wrong. I have
defined God many times as "The creator of the universe".

Don't you remember me asking you to use your magic A-Theist powers to determine if "blitzendorf" existed or not (without a definition of "blitzendorf')?

That's odd, because when I do a search on "blitzendorf", I only get your last post. Perhaps you used a different word. I don't recall. But I will tell you now that one can not give evidence for something undefined. If you want me to give evidence for free will, you will have to define it.

Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Somewhat similar to my definition, although lots of extra stuff. However, Superior is a relative term. Is a God superior to the Progenitor Solipsist? Superior to Fate?

Here's my definition of "God" ...

God = A Superior entity (a Graviton) capable of generating a Universe.

Universe = a shared reality (common frame of reference) occupied by two or more entities.

So you agree the universe is real and not some projection in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist or the Logical Goddess? If you are stating that solipsism is untrue, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Now I'll ask again, what is your definition of "free will"?

And I will tell you once again as I have
here and here and here and here and here and here and here that Free Will = the ability to choose between available, perceived options.

I cannot help it that you define "choose" as "no choice" . This is my definition, and it is the only one I am defending. I am not calling it magical. I am not calling it "Free Willy". I have given evidence many times for free will as I have defined it.

Now I ask for your definition so that I can see if there is any evidence for that. I cannot search for evidence if I don't know for what I require evidence.

 

[Peskanov]

Ian,

---
quote:
I admit I'm very tired but I really have no idea what you mean by describing free will as complex. I mean the concept of complexity can only legitimately be applied to physical things can't it?

Moreover with my intepretation of free will it is meaningless to ask how it works because it is a basic existent.
---

Not, complex is an abstract concept; you can aply it to mathematics, logic, art, whatever.
I mean, you can perceive the will has different parts. In fact, in your examples you are providing good examples about how many factors add to end in a decission.

---
quote:
The question is not the fact that my behaviour is determined by my desires or what I intrinsically am, but why I am what I am to have those desires in the first place. Er . . isn't it?
---

You are pushing my english level here...
I don't see the conection of free will with this question, sorry.

---
quote:
Maybe a thought just suddenly acausally popped into my head thinking "Hey, I really fancy kippers, but I'm going to have porridge to prove I have (libertarian) free will" LOL. Of course maybe that thought needn't have arisen wholly acausally as perhaps I might be the sort of person prone to such sudden maverick thoughts. But this doesn't mean to say that my behaviour could be encapsulated by any algorithm.
---

The problem of your example is:
It doesn't mean to say that your behaviour could be encapsulated by any algorithm.
But...
We know this kind of behaviour could be encapsulated in an algorithm because we got there from computers studying.

In other words, unexpected thoughs and decissions are not proof of an external free will. In a complex algorithm this kind of unexpected behaviour is pretty normal.
You have to think that a human brain is a huge system full of balancing mechanisms, chained. Impulses happens and you are not going to be capable of mentally rebuilding these process.
Why? Because a system can not have full knowledge of itself, this is and old & established principle...

---
quote:
Even if it could be, the algorithm would just describe my behaviour, it would just describe what I freely choose to do. This is different from if physicalism/materialism is true because then the algorithm wouldn't just describe my behaviour, it would lead it
---

I don't know too much about materialism, or your vision of materialism, but in modern neurology the mind is both the dinamic & static configuration of the brain.
BTW, an algorithm is a description of a process, not a description of the results of this process. An algorithm which draws a circle doesn't resemble the description of a circle (except in some implementations) and partial understanding of it can lead you easily to think in something different of a circle as a result.
In other words, an algo. which generates something similar to human will would be intuitively unrelated to human decissions. You would read it and you would't believe that piece of code could produce such results...

---
quote:
So it seems to me to be a bit of a phony free will. Within the free will I have outlined, what is my free will circumscribed by apart from the type of person I am? And if the type of person I am is wholly determined, what is it wholly determined by? (given my belief that what I really am is non-physical).
---

If we want to understand "human will" we will have to create an understable description of it. This is an universal problem which idealism, dualism, and some other models don't address despite its appearances. I would say these models are build to avoid addressing it, especially idealism.
About the type of person you are, it's determined by thousands of things (physical) which you already know...I don't understand which problem do you see there.(?)

PD: Edited to correct some silly error

 

[Franko]

You know that is untrue. I don't know why you keep saying it when every time you do I simply prove you wrong. I have
defined God many times as "The creator of the universe".

So TLOP and The Initial State (IS) are “God”?

Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?

That's odd, because when I do a search on "blitzendorf", I only get your last post. Perhaps you used a different word. I don't recall. But I will tell you now that one can not give evidence for something undefined. If you want me to give evidence for free will, you will have to define it.

No … I don’t have to define it. I don’t believe in your magic indefinable powers.

I believe that “God” exist, but I can define “God”. But I don’t believe in “free will” any more than I believe in 4-sided triangles. The entire concept is logically flawed. It cannot be defined. If you are claiming otherwise, then YOU define it.

Somewhat similar to my definition, although lots of extra stuff. However, Superior is a relative term. Is a God superior to the Progenitor Solipsist? Superior to Fate?

Superior = Greater than (>) = Having more Mass (or Information or Energy) than

So you agree the universe is real and not some projection in the mind of the Progenitor Solipsist or the Logical Goddess?

Define “real”.

Like I said, the Universe is definitely less real than You or I, and that is because the Universe (and all the “matter” you perceive, including your physical body) is just a projection from the mind of the Logical Goddess to your mind.

If you are stating that solipsism is untrue, then I wholeheartedly agree.

If I am Not a figment of your imagination, then that would be evidence against Solipsism being True, but if I am just a figment of your imagination I would say that it is likely everyone is just a figment of your imagination. Maybe You are the PS and this is just your way of trying to make sense of “reality” … whatever that means?

[definition of “free will” …]And I will tell you once again as I have
here and here and here and here and here and here and here that Free Will = the ability to choose between available, perceived options.

And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).

If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.

Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).

You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.

I cannot help it that you define "choose" as "no choice" .

That’s right, but by the same token I don’t claim that computer programs have “free will’ just because they “choose between available, perceived options”. To me that is absurd and misleading. Computer programs don’t have “free will”.

This is my definition, and it is the only one I am defending. I am not calling it magical. I am not calling it "Free Willy". I have given evidence many times for free will as I have defined it.

Now I ask for your definition so that I can see if there is any evidence for that. I cannot search for evidence if I don't know for what I require evidence.

Either your decision making process is based on objective RULES – in which case it is Determined (FATED), or it is NOT based on rules. If it is NOT based on Rules, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Decisions not based on rules would be truly random which is exactly the same as saying they are based on nothing (Magical/Supernatural/Incoherent/Mystical/Not Comprehensible).

 

[subgenius]

Sou:

I find this whole "free will" debate rather sophmoric, frankly, right up there with the "how do you know that the tree is still there when you are not looking at it?"

If someone wishes to delude himself that he has no free will, very well.

--J.D.

I would have used the word "jejune" (vs. sophomoric) only because it has more panache.
Free will vs. determinism:
The ability to hold two opposite concepts is the sign of a healthy mind. (or something like that)----F. Scott Fitzgerald, and others.

Free will is like ability: if you think you have it, or you think you don't, you're right either way.

 

[Franko]

Logical Deists ... so f*cking repetitive.

Jesus Christ Loki! I've only heard the A-Theists recite that mantra about 10,000 times. Perhaps if you actually present some evidence for your beliefs for a change I won't have to keep reciting how you have presented NO EVIDENCE FOR THE THINGS YOU BELIEVE?

Aside from that you claim that Christians are crazy for believing in their god with no evidence, Yet you seem to have no problem believing in YOUR GOD ("free willy") based on NO EVIDENCE.

That makes you repetitive ... and a hypocrite.

 

[Tricky]

So TLOP and The Initial State (IS) are “God”?

My definition of God is "The creator of the universe", and I lack belief in a creator of the universe. My words mean what they say, not what you say.

Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?

I have no evidence for any "creation", since that implies a creator. As far as I know, it just happened. I refuse to invent fairy tales for the things for which I have no evidence.

No … I don’t have to define it.

Then it is pointless to look for evidence, wouldn't you agree?

I believe that “God” exist, but I can define “God”. But I don’t believe in “free will” any more than I believe in 4-sided triangles. The entire concept is logically flawed. It cannot be defined. If you are claiming otherwise, then YOU define it.

As I have. I do not need your approval. Nor do I feel like a lecture on logic from you is particularly illuminating.

Superior = Greater than (>) = Having more Mass (or Information or Energy) than

Is the Progenitor Solipsist then superior to the Logical Goddess?

Like I said, the Universe is definitely less real than You or I, and that is because the Universe (and all the “matter” you perceive, including your physical body) is just a projection from the mind of the Logical Goddess to your mind.

An interesting hypothesis. Any evidence?

If I am Not a figment of your imagination, then that would be evidence against Solipsism being True, but if I am just a figment of your imagination I would say that it is likely everyone is just a figment of your imagination.

How would you propose a test to determine if you are a figment of my imagination? Surely you don't expect me to accept such a claim without evidence.

Maybe You are the PS and this is just your way of trying to make sense of “reality” … whatever that means?

Maybe. And maybe you are just playing a little game of internet D&D spouting incomprehensible stuff to see what reactions you can garner. That one makes a lot more sense.

And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).

I'm not going to play the "definitions" game with you, Franko. I believe all rational people who are fluent in English know the meanings of commonplace words. Besides, history has shown that no matter how many times I define something for you, you will claim I have not, as I showed in my previous post.

If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.

Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.

Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).

I am in fact claiming there is no evidence that I am obeying a set of rules when making a decision. For you to prove otherwise, you must show the existence of those rules by perfectly predicting everthing I will do. It is not enough to claim they exist. You have to show it. Can you? Do I need to define "perfectly" and "everything" for you?

You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.

I have explained that if such an objective set of rules exist, then there is no evidence for them. I do withhold belief for things without evidence. I have just explained what I will accept as evidence.

That’s right, but by the same token I don’t claim that computer programs have “free will’ just because they “choose between available, perceived options”. To me that is absurd and misleading. Computer programs don’t have “free will”.

No they don't, because they don't perceive. If you claim they do perceive, then you are claiming that computers are conscious. I don't think you want to go there.

Either your decision making process is based on objective RULES – in which case it is Determined (FATED), or it is NOT based on rules. If it is NOT based on Rules, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Decisions not based on rules would be truly random which is exactly the same as saying they are based on nothing (Magical/Supernatural/Incoherent/Mystical/Not Comprehensible).

As we have shown (through the baseball analogy) adherance to rules does not predicate outcome. The presence of "rules" in the universe does not predicate fate.

 

[Franko]

My definition of God is "The creator of the universe", and I lack belief in a creator of the universe.

So you are claiming that the Universe was never created? If it wasn't created are you claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed?

My words mean what they say, not what you say.

You go out of your way to be confusing and unclear.

Franko:
Didn’t TLOPIS create this universe – even by your cosmology?
Tricky:
I have no evidence for any "creation", since that implies a creator.

So the “Big Bang” Theory is all wrong then? The Universe has ALWAYS existed in a “steady state”?

As far as I know, it just happened.

What does that mean? It sounds like you are claiming it is magical, you just aren’t saying the word magic.

I refuse to invent fairy tales for the things for which I have no evidence.

So what is your evidence for “free will”?

Tricky:
Is the Progenitor Solipsist then superior to the Logical Goddess?

It’s a moot point. The PS no longer exist.

But the LG is omnipotent. To my knowledge there is no entity which currently exist who is superior to Her.

An interesting hypothesis. Any evidence?

Coming from the guy who believes he has magic “free will” powers based on no evidence, I found this sentence rather hysterical.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

How many times do you want to pretend you haven’t heard the evidence?

Start providing some evidence for the things you believe. Eventually you will realize that you don’t have any evidence. Then you will start to understand what I am telling you.

How would you propose a test to determine if you are a figment of my imagination? Surely you don't expect me to accept such a claim without evidence.

I am not claiming to be real Tricky. If You are the only entity that exist I would think you would want to know that information, but as you have demonstrated you really don’t seem that interested in what is actually True in reality.

I’ll tell you this, if Solipsism is False it can definitely be demonstrated to be False.

Maybe. And maybe you are just playing a little game of internet D&D spouting incomprehensible stuff to see what reactions you can garner. That one makes a lot more sense.

Sure … and I bet you have magic “free will” powers too!

Tell me Tricky, how much sense does it make for a Christian to claim that God exist unless you can prove that God doesn’t exist?

Does it make any more sense for You/MRC/CWL/UPCHIMP to claim that “free will” exist unless someone can prove that “free will” doesn’t exist?

Franko:
And what is your evidence that you posses the ability to “choose” between “available” perceived options? In over a Years time you have not presented a single scrap of evidence that you actually have “available options”, and you have yet to explain precisely what you mean by the term “choose” (or “choice”).

Tricky:
I'm not going to play the "definitions" game with you, Franko. I believe all rational people who are fluent in English know the meanings of commonplace words. Besides, history has shown that no matter how many times I define something for you, you will claim I have not, as I showed in my previous post.

Translation: Trixy can’t explain what he believes or why he believes it (magic “free will” powers of “choice”) so you should just take his word for it, because with a liberal interpretation of the divinely inspired inerrant dictionary (and Dictionary’s are not required to be logical according to Trixy) he is obviously correct.

Franko:
If Determinism is True, and you decisions are made no differently then a computer program or an Atom makes “decisions”, then I would say your claim to possess “free will’ is nothing more then a semantic distortion of FATE.
Tricky:
Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.

Where’s the evidence? What evidence do you have that demonstrates your decisions are not made algorithmically obeying a logical set of objective rules?

Are you once again claiming that the present is not based on the past? If that is True, then why is it that the Buc’s still are the Super Bowl champions?

Franko:
Do Atoms or Computer programs have “free will”? What is it about your behavior that makes you believe your decision making process works any differently? Either you are obeying a set of rules when you makes “decisions” (in which case they are Determined by the rules), or you are NOT obeying a set of rules (which is what you are implying).

Tricky:
I am in fact claiming there is no evidence that I am obeying a set of rules when making a decision.

NO RULES?!?

So you aren’t made of Atoms Tricky?

Are you claiming that the chemicals which make up your mind are not behaving according to the deterministic laws of Physics?

For you to prove otherwise, you must show the existence of those rules by perfectly predicting everthing I will do.

The Goddess is predicting everything you will do. And I am getting better and better at it.

But Tricky if Determinism is now False again, then how is it you are able to Determine anything? Have you given that ANY thought at all?

It is not enough to claim they exist. You have to show it. Can you?

Sure. But I hope you won’t mind if I embarrass you and your friends some more first? I want you to dig a really deep hole for yourself.

Franko:
You have NEVER explained exactly and precisely what you mean when you claim that your consciousness DOES NOT obey an objective set of rules when it makes decisions.

Tricky:
I have explained that if such an objective set of rules exist, then there is no evidence for them. I do withhold belief for things without evidence. I have just explained what I will accept as evidence.

Like I said the other day Trixy, when your religion demands that you deny the existence of the Laws of physics … it’s time for you to find a new religion.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

If it was created are you claiming that the Universe has ALWAYS existed?

The fruits of 'logical deism'.

 

[Loki]

Franko,

But the LG is omnipotent. To my knowledge there is no entity which currently exist who is superior to Her.

Knowledge versus belief?

 

[hammegk]

Ah, but there is a ton of evidence that determinism is not true, so your house of cards tumbles down.

I don't recall the presentation of any such evidence. Would you refresh my memory?

I find as I contemplate the issues involved in the Stimpy et al position (that things are either deterministic, or random), it is more and more difficult to find "free will" under the loosest definition thereof. Any metaphysic ranging from hardest atheism/materialialism through the most basic idealism has the same problem at least to me; that is "free will does not, and actually cannot, exist".

A syllogism of the form SOME, SOME, SOME is always invalid,

I could use some help here as well. What does the some-some-some problem have to do with

"Atoms obey TLOP, you are made of Atoms, you obey TLOP".

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

I find as I contemplate the issues involved in the Stimpy et al position (that things are either deterministic, or random), it is more and more difficult to find "free will" under the loosest definition thereof. Any metaphysic ranging from hardest atheism/materialialism through the most basic idealism has the same problem at least to me; that is "free will does not, and actually cannot, exist".

Well, as long as you insist on defining free-will to be "freedom from determinism, but not just random", you are going to have that problem.

Define something in a self-contradictory way, and you should not be surprised to find that it can't exist.

The question of whether free-will exists isn't a metaphysical or philosophical one. It is a semantic one. Define the term "free-will" to refer to something that exists, and it does. Define it to refer to something that does not exist, or to something that is self-contradictory, and it does not. Go figure.

The only way for the question of the existence of free-will to be a philosophical one (or even a non-trivial one, for that matter), is to define the term in a coherent way, so as to refer to something which may, or may not, exist. All the coherent definitions of free-will that I know of either trivially do or do not exist.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

could use some help here as well. What does the some-some-some problem have to do with

"Atoms obey TLOP, you are made of Atoms, you obey TLOP".

The intention of the "some, some, some" problem is to demonstrate that it's possible for a syllogism to have two true premises, and a true conclusion, yet be an invalid syllogism.

One form of such an invalid syllogism is the "some, some some" problem.
Another form of such an invalid syllogism is the "fallacy of composition".

The "Saudis/Muslims/Terrorists" is an example of the first form. The "Atoms/Made Of Atoms/Humans/TLOP" is an example of the second form. In both examples, the premises and conclusion may all be true, yet the syllogism is invalid - has no weight as a logical argument.

 

[Peskanov]

Loki;

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right. Franko says (implicit):

(ALL) atoms obey TLOP
(ALL) humans are (full) made of atoms

you can reject the premises, but still he did not make a some-some-some syllogism...

 

[hammegk]

"fallacy of composition".
.... the syllogism is invalid - has no weight as a logical argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

1.Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in
itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious.

The second type
1.The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2.Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If
there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every
part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human
body is made of matter.

This is sniping to no purpose, in that (at least for materialists)

Atoms obey TLOP is true

You are made of Atoms is true

Do you (as a materialist) deny that you obey TLOP?

Well, as long as you insist on defining free-will to be "freedom from determinism, but not just random", you are going to have that problem.

I made no such definition, but do conclude -- under any metaphysic -- that absolute determinism is the logical conclusion. I'm hoping some idealist can explain why this is not true in every instance. I have no such expectation from materialists.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So to recap, and in the unlikely event that anyone is unaware of Frank's jingle here it is:

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics
People are made of Atoms
People obey the Laws of Physics.

It's a fallacy of equivocation. The context and use of the word "obey" in the 1st premise is an entirely different than the use of the same word in the conclusion.

When scientists say that atoms obey the laws of physics, they simply means that atoms cannot break any laws of physics, not that they are conscious worker bees that have to do everything that a conscious "LOP" tells them to do.

The use of the word "obey" in the conclusion is used as if the LOP are a sentient being giving out orders to be followed by humans.


Here is an example of another equivocation fallacy to demonstrate.


People that lie are liars.
Bob lies in bed to sleep.
Bob is a liar.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: Those darned Laws Of Physics

It's a fallacy of equivocation. The context and use of the word "obey" in the 1st premise is an entirely different than the use of the same word in the conclusion.

When scientists say that atoms obey the laws of physics, they simply means that atoms cannot break any laws of physics, not that they are conscious worker bees that have to do everything that a conscious "LOP" tells them to do.

Sorry. You are talking about atoms & the current, imperfect math-physics map humans use.
TLOP is the territory, and science does not know the actual effect of that what-actually-is territory.

The use of the word "obey" in the conclusion is used as if the LOP are a sentient being giving out orders to be followed by humans.

Neither you nor anyone else knows the facts of that matter either.

People that lie are liars.
Bob lies in bed to sleep.
Bob is a liar.

More obfuscation.

Do you deny *you* *obey* TLOP?

 

[Loki]

hammegk,

This is sniping to no purpose ...

No, it's sniping to a very real purpose - it exposes Franko's "Proof" as "not a proof".

You seem to be interested in the following quote from the site you linked to :

If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious.

You may have missed this when this was discussed at tedious length a few months back, but this was pointed out to Franko - that he needs to expand his "proof" to provide justification for why the behaviours he wishes to promote from "atoms" to "made of atoms" are valid. This requires him to explain both "TLOP" and "obeys". He refuese to do so. Minus any expressed justification, the proof is flawed.

Do you (as a materialist) deny that you obey TLOP?

No, I don't deny that I "obey" TLOP - for a reasonable set of definitions of "obey" and "TLOP". But since I'm a compatibilist, this has no relevance on the issue of Free Will.

I made no such definition, but do conclude -- under any metaphysic -- that absolute determinism is the logical conclusion. I'm hoping some idealist can explain why this is not true in every instance. I have no such expectation from materialists.

Well, now you have an explanation from a materialist (although I think you have had this available to you for some time).

1. Libertarian Free Will is incoherent under virtually any metaphysics - it just defines itself to be itself, which says exactly nothing.
2. True Free Will is bound to concepts such as "identity" and "coercion".
3. Such a definition of Free Will is both logical, and immune to "obey TLOP" arguments.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Peskanov,

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right

No one has said that Franko's jingle falls into the some-some-some category. This only came about because Franko made that claim that *any* syllogism that contains 2 true premises and a true conclusion *must* be valid. He said this quite clearly. On a number of occasions, he has stated that the *only* way a syllogism can be invalid is if one of the premises is false. The point of introducing the some-some-some example was to demonstrate that he is wrong to equate "valid premises and conclsuon" with "valid syllogism".

 

[Tricky]

Loki;

I think Hammegk is (strongly) sugesting that Franko's assertion does not fall into the some-some-some category.
And I think he is right. Franko says (implicit):

(ALL) atoms obey TLOP
(ALL) humans are (full) made of atoms

you can reject the premises, but still he did not make a some-some-some syllogism...

You are correct, Peskanov. The "jingle" is not a "some some some" syllogism. That syllogism was presented to show a simple example of a fallacious syllogism with correct premises and conclusions. However, it is noteworthy that Franko also claimed the Saudi/Terrorist syllogism was valid, thus solidifying the claim that he knows nothing about logic. Or deism, for that matter.