Evidence of self determination is abundant.
Does Physics disprove the existence of free will?
- Thread starter M.I.D
- Start date
Not misconceptions but definitions. I am arguing that to have meaningful debate on the matter you need to agree on the definition of the terms. Otherwise you have people effectively talking irrelevancies with regard the other's position.
if I define a Zarg as a dog and you define it as a teapot, how can you meaningfully discuss that my claim that a Zarg ideally needs to be walked every day, by you referring to how it needs to be filled with boiling water.
so I say again: to have meaningful discussion you need to be using the same notion/definition.
No, of course not, and I have not suggested it. I have suggested that if you want to argue that X's notion of freewill is NOT an illusion then you should probably start with the same definition of freewill as X is using, otherwise what you say will be fundamentally irrelevant to X's position.
I have zero intention of offering a definition here, but to discuss other people's views, whatever they may be. But for that I need those people to define what they mean. That's what I'm asking for here.
I would prefer you ask those that have used the term what they mean, as I have put no claim or notion forward in this thread for discussion.
However, to me determinism is the notion of the same inputs always giving the same outputs.
To causality it expresses zero variation in the effect from a given totality of causes.
And it implies theoretical predictability.
But I the person using the term has different understanding or definition then anything I might say on the matter might simply be irrelevant.
hence the request for clarification of what people mean. Is that really too much to ask?
But if you want to argue that X's notion of free will as an illusion is confused and incoherent, you don't necessarily need any other definition of free will at all.
So how does that conflict with freedom of will?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Sarkus never defines anything he means. He waits and waits until a poster defines something for him and then he pounces on that hoping to redefine their definition out of existence. It's a clever strategy, but woefully transparent.
I'm sure you might even get round to that one day, but there's zero sign of you doing it thus far.
That would depend upon your notion of freewill. Care to offer one?
It is for the person making the claim to define the terms he uses. I happily admit I don't make too many claims compared to others, and thus the burden generally falls to others. But as for the accusation of "redefining"... care to support that? And care to support the entire claim that I hope to redefine things "out of existence"?
Or is this just a hollow ad hominem on your part, with nothing to offer regard what was actually stated?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
It has nothing to do with making a claim and everything to do with making sense. If you want to be understood you have to be willing to define your terms for people. Nobody will know what your "Zarg" is unless you tell them it is a dog.
Thank you so much for making my point for me, MR. People who want to make claims about freewill need to define what it is they mean by freewill. It is then for others to challenge them with that definition, not using their own definition.
So thank you so very much for, I'm sure inadvertently, making the same point as I have been making. So ironically you have criticized my point by saying the same. Who'dathunkit!
Well as far as I can tell it is you who has to support the claim of determinism as it is abundantly clear that self determination (aka freewill) is a reality and that Determinism as you claim is supported by a theoretical science that is potentially flawed.Thank you so much for making my point for me, MR. People who want to make claims about freewill need to define what it is they mean by freewill. It is then for others to challenge them with that definition, not using their own definition.
So thank you so very much for, I'm sure inadvertently, making the same point as I have been making. So ironically you have criticized my point by saying the same. Who'dathunkit!
Just about ever where I observe humans I see self determination and freewill in action.
So make your claim and support it. With the appropriate definitions please.
It's the central content of every post of mine on this thread.
No, it would not. It's a question directed at you - you are the one claiming that determinism as you see it conflicts with free will as you see it, in fact consigning it to "illusion" (within a thread devoted to physical science cross free will),
and then rejecting out of hand - without explanation - the observation that the claim only makes sense with certain conceptions of free will.
Nobody else's notion of free will is involved; just yours.
If it is everywhere, as you claim, then it should be easy for you to define. Are you going to?
I am making no claim other than that one needs to define the notion one is discussing up from, to avoid irrelevancies.
Your evasion of that, and your desire to require a definition from someone making no claim about the matter, speaks volumes.
But you are making that claim - which is dubious in any serious discussion anyway - in direct and pointed objection and response to posts that are not "discussing up" from any such notion.
Apologies, "up from" was supposed to have been deleted. My phone is awkward to post from.
That said, if you disagree that one needs to define things then it is no wonder discussions such as this get nowhere, and deteriorate as they inevitably do, when people argue using different definitions and notions.
But hey, if you think you can get by without defining what you want to discuss, go for it. Just count me out.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Thank you so much for making my point for me, MR. People who want to make claims about freewill need to define what it is they mean by freewill. It is then for others to challenge them with that definition, not using their own definition.
So thank you so very much for, I'm sure inadvertently, making the same point as I have been making. So ironically you have criticized my point by saying the same. Who'dathunkit!
Surely you can't be this dense. I just told you that in order to make sense YOU have to define YOUR terms. It's true of anybody who wants to communicate. You think you are somehow exempt from this rule? Why? Everyone knows you believe freewill is an illusion. Why can't you define that for us?
Last edited:
I can't define your notion of free will for you. I can't define your notion of determinism for you. I can only deal with the posting here, when discussing the posting here.
I've made no claims in this thread, MR, other than for the need to define terms. I am here to discuss the views that others put forward, but to do so they need to define their terms. You even agree with that yet, for some reason you require me to define terms when I have made no claim on the matter.
You also know that. So instead you have to refer to other threads. Those are not this thread. I am not here to discuss my notion, but to discuss views and notions that others have, which requires them to define their terms.
You think this is me being dense? No, this is me simply being reasonable, MR. You might like to try it.
That's the ****ing point! I haven't said anything about free will in this thread, I haven't offered any claims. I am here to discuss other peoples' notions. And yet there is a reluctance to provide any actual definition for purposes of discussion by those making claims in this thread.
instead I'm getting criticised for not providing my own definition when my own view is not under discussion. I have offered no views, no claims. I am here to see what other people can offer.
Is even that too much for you to grasp?
You have. That's the issue - the central one of my posting (not yours in particular, the category or kind involved).
Definition would be the result, not the prerequisite, of successful discussion.