Possibly. I'm still churning it through my head.
Too depressed to look at the clock.Then time yourself.
I have no idea.
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Yes ...
Really? Where is the empirical rigor?!
Or did you just get used to identifying yourself as "depressed"?
Well, then we can't hope to make progress, if our basic terms are not defined.
Then, there is also no reason to get upset over the free will problem etc..
Too depressed to care!
Meh, where's the definition of "real" first?
THAT'S why I have no idea.
*Wait, so you decided that free will was an illusion without knowing what the real is?
i mean, you can say it is 'not real', but....that's a pretty meaningless definition without a definition of real.
Tsk!
Yes, but he has, essentially, confessed to having no choice but to decide that.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You didn't address any of my questions!
Pfft.
I said it because the argument being used showed that free will does not exist. Yet we believe we have it.
Ergo I can claim it's an illusion without knowing what "real" is.
I have noted that your argument is incomplete and assumes an irrational definition of free will.
Your conclusion that free will is an illusion (and that you needn't know what real/illusion is) is based on an incomplete argument with unsound premises.
So... tell me where the errors are. Don't just leave it at that.
Not quite. That was a separate discussion and predicated on a perfect knowledge of those desires etc leading to knowledge of the outcome (which were more or less your own words).
That particular aspect didn't form any part of my basic argument.
Not that I'm aware of.
The definition above fits into my argument.
How can it be free if it's inevitable that one will make that particular choice and ONLY that choice?
Where lies the "choice" if ONLY that decision can be made?
A part of the free will problem derives from an unresolved unclarity about what the "free" refers to.
The most straightforward use of the term "free will" is in ordinary law - "To do something in free will - ie. to not be threatened or coerced to do something."
I think that the various forms of determinism (biological, theological, sociological etc. determinism) are operating out of a category mistake, where they try to find will on a level where it does not and can not apply (either in cells, by God's will, as a matter of social formation).
I think the term "free will" should be limited to uses in ordinary law; and everywhere else, we should simply use the term "will."
The most straightforward use of the term "free will" is in ordinary law - "To do something in free will - ie. to not be threatened or coerced to do something."
I think that the various forms of determinism (biological, theological, sociological etc. determinism) are operating out of a category mistake, where they try to find will on a level where it does not and can not apply (either in cells, by God's will, as a matter of social formation).
I think the term "free will" should be limited to uses in ordinary law; and everywhere else, we should simply use the term "will."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/will
I'm dubious about choosing/ deciding to do something when there is no option except to do it. :shrug: