Free Will and Also Science Disproving God

[Xenophanes]

One of the "determinants" of events is choices concious beings make.

Can you actually demonstrate that there are such things as conscious choices?

Didn't fucking think so.

Meanwhile, if you want to impress anybody here, you'll have to do a fuck of a lot better than merely assert that something is a failure of Occam's Razor, not least when the thing that's supposed to be a failure is my stating that something you insist is real is actually illusory. What are the additional entities or assumptions in my suggestion?

If I had such a shitty understanding of what Occam's Razor was about, I'd fucking run away from me too, not least because I really do understand what it is and what it's for.

You cannot demonstrate either way if by demonstrate, you mean justyify or get evidence for or confirm; these are all types of justificationism and therefore fallacious. A fallacious demand cannot be a criticism.

 

[Xenophanes]

One of the "determinants" of events is choices concious beings make.

Can you actually demonstrate that there are such things as conscious choices?

Didn't fucking think so.

Meanwhile, if you want to impress anybody here, you'll have to do a fuck of a lot better than merely assert that something is a failure of Occam's Razor, not least when the thing that's supposed to be a failure is my stating that something you insist is real is actually illusory. What are the additional entities or assumptions in my suggestion?

If I had such a shitty understanding of what Occam's Razor was about, I'd fucking run away from me too, not least because I really do understand what it is and what it's for.

Furthermore, why are you acting tough?

It is adding some assumptions, it is adding the assumption that in a deterministic world an illusion of free-will plays any role. It does not. Unless, you are assuming at some point that we did not have the illusion of free-will and this had some detrimental effect on our behaviour. Which actually goes against determinism.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You cannot determin either way if by determine you mean justyify or get evidence for or confirm,. These are all types of justificationism and therefore fallacious. A fallacious demand cannot be a criticism.

Thought is just something that happens to other people for you, isn't it? I didn't even use the word 'determine'.

Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as conscious choice, yes or no?

As for the rest, show your working out, because I don't see any evidence that there are more than two functioning neurons behind the guff you've soiled the forum with since you arrived.

 

[Xenophanes]

You cannot determin either way if by determine you mean justyify or get evidence for or confirm,. These are all types of justificationism and therefore fallacious. A fallacious demand cannot be a criticism.

Thought is just something that happens to other people for you, isn't it? I didn't even use the word 'determine'.

Can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as conscious choice, yes or no?


As for the rest, show your working out, because I don't see any evidence that there are more than two functioning neurons behind the guff you've soiled the forum with since you arrived.

I answered your question, can we move on, unless you have an actual criticism and not just bluff.

I edited the correction into my last post from "determine" to "demonstrate". I can demonstrate it by saying that someone can order from a menu.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Furthermore, why are you acting tough?

Remember that bit about the value of your opinion? Now's the time.

It is adding some assumptions, it is adding the assumption that in a deterministic world an illusion of free-will plays any role.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

I'm not even assuming determinism. That's your baggage, not mine.

It does not.p

And of course, you can demonstrate this, can't you?

Unless, you are assuming at some point that we did not have the illusion of free-will and this had some detrimental effect on our behaviour.

I'm assuming nothing whatsoever.

Which actually goes against determinism.

I don't need determinism.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I answered your question, can we move on, unless you have an actual criticism and not just bluff.

No, you evaded my question. And I do have an actual criticism, namely that you're talking bollocks.

I can demonstrate it by saying that someone can order from a menu.

Fuck me, a 12 year-old whose just read Sophie's World has a more sophisticated grasp of the relevant concepts than this. Someone can order from a menu with or without free will, including in a deterministic world. This objection is fucking stupid.

Got anything resembling thought?

 

[Xenophanes]

I answered your question, can we move on, unless you have an actual criticism and not just bluff.

No, you evaded my question. And I do have an actual criticism, namely that you're talking bollocks.

I can demonstrate it by saying that someone can order from a menu.

Fuck me, a 12 year-old whose just read Sophie's World has a more sophisticated grasp of the relevant concepts than this. Someone can order from a menu with or without free will, including in a deterministic world. This objection is fucking stupid.

Got anything resembling thought?

The problem is, is that you come from a justificationist point of view, rather than a fallibilst one. My argument is not criticsed by you asking me to demonstrate something, because the fact of somethings existence can be explained by a lot of theories, what we need to is eliminate theories through testing and criticism. No amount of justification ever gets us closer to the truth. A theory is born true or false, and it stays that way until we modify it, through testing (attempts at falsification) and criticism.

You believe in causal explanations right? Cause cannot be "demonstrated" or seen, or inferred. Hume made this argument years ago in the form of a reductio ad absurdum. Causal explanation is still the only explanation we have got for this, just because we cannot demonstrate it does not mean it is false.

 

[Xenophanes]

I answered your question, can we move on, unless you have an actual criticism and not just bluff.

No, you evaded my question. And I do have an actual criticism, namely that you're talking bollocks.

This is not a criticism.

I can demonstrate it by saying that someone can order from a menu.

Fuck me, a 12 year-old whose just read Sophie's World has a more sophisticated grasp of the relevant concepts than this. Someone can order from a menu with or without free will, including in a deterministic world. This objection is fucking stupid.

Got anything resembling thought?

Lol, you have no idea how to respond do you. your stance that free-will is an illusion is unfalsifiable. You say that the illusion of free-will and free-will are indistinguishable, but then you ask me to demonstrate it. Good luck with that silly excuse for a criticism.

Whereas my stance is falsifiable, but not yet shown to be false, or criticised by you.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The problem is, is that you come from a justificationist point of view, rather than a fallibilst one.

No, the real problem is that you're posting like somebody who's three weeks into his first philosophy course and thinks he has the keys to the fucking cosmos. Frankly, that you feel the need to categorise things with your idiotic isms tells me all I need to know. Here's a protip for you: If you have an ism, I don't fit it. Isms are for morons who can't think properly.

Here's another, more important tip[: Don't presume to tell me what I fucking think, got it?

My argument is not criticsed by you asking me to demonstrate something, because the fact of somethings existence can be explained by a lot of theories, what we need to is eliminate theories through testing and criticism.

Total cock. If you fail to provide support for your assertions, they're nothing more than assertions, which can be dismissed with the same casual disregard with which they were erected. The fallacy of blind assertion will not win you any arguments here.

No amount of justification ever gets us closer to the truth. A theory is born true or false, and it stays that way until we modify it, through testing (attempts at falsification) and criticism.

Criticism has fuck all to do with it, and what you have here isn't a theory anyway, it's a turd predicated on the palsied view that non-determinism entails free will.

You believe in causal explanations right?

I have no use for the term 'believe' so no. Casual explanations are for Aristotelian fuckwits.

Cause cannot be "demonstrated" or seen, or inferred.

[

What a pile of ignorant fucking drivel. Do you actually have a brain?

Hume made this argument years ago in the form of a reductio ad absurdum.

Causal explanation is still the only explanation we have got for this, just because we cannot demonstrate it does not mean it is false.

If you can't demonstrate it, all you can do is to assert it. When all you have are assertions, you have exactly fuck all. Your assertions and two shit will purchase for you precisely two shits.

BTW, don't topload posts just to add a small comment at the end, it's incredibly poor form.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This is not a criticism.

I'll, decide what constitutes a criticism, moron.

Lol, you have no idea how to respond do you. your stance that free-will is an illusion is unfalsifiable.

You've changed your tune, since only a few posts ago you claimed to be able to demonstrate free will, which would constitute a falsification of my fucking stance, genius. Which is it?

That said, I've already provided evidence that our decisions are subject to influencing factors we aren't even aware of, which means that we aren't choosing unconstrained. The question only remains whether we have will or merely the illusion of it. My stance is that the freedom is definitely illusory, whether or not the will is.

You say that the illusion of free-will and free-will are indistinguishable, but then you ask me to demonstrate it. Good luck with that silly excuse for a criticism.

Listen you stupid cunt, you categorically asserted that we have free will. You erect fuckwittery, you support it. That's how this shit works.

Whereas my stance is falsifiable, but not yet shown to be false, or criticised by you.

How is your stance falsifiable, if free will is merely an illusion?

 

[Xenophanes]

This is not a criticism.

I'll, decide what constitutes a criticism, moron.

Lol, you have no idea how to respond do you. your stance that free-will is an illusion is unfalsifiable.

You've changed your tune, since only a few posts ago you claimed to be able to demonstrate free will, which would constitute a falsification of my fucking stance, genius. Which is it?

That said, I've already provided evidence that our decisions are subject to influencing factors we aren't even aware of, which means that we aren't choosing unconstrained. The question only remains whether we have will or merely the illusion of it. My stance is that the freedom is definitely illusory, whether or not the will is.

You say that the illusion of free-will and free-will are indistinguishable, but then you ask me to demonstrate it. Good luck with that silly excuse for a criticism.

Listen you stupid cunt, you categorically asserted that we have free will. You erect fuckwittery, you support it. That's how this shit works.

Whereas my stance is falsifiable, but not yet shown to be false, or criticised by you.

How is your stance falsifiable, if free will is merely an illusion?

Okay, this is a test that can be done. If a person is given a choice between several actions and a limited to do it in, but he gets to choose whether or not he makes the action or not within the alloted time. If a scientist can determine whether he is going to do an action and if so which one, and at what time within the time alotted, precisely, free-will then be shown to be false. And the belief in free-will an illusion.


"Listen you stupid cunt, you categorically asserted that we have free will. You erect fuckwittery, you support it. That's how this shit works. "

That's how the popular conception has it, but it is false. Nothing can be supported. You might feel that evidence gives you reason to believ, but that is merely wish-fulfilment.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Sorry, you're just too stupid for me. I can't be arsed with you. Maybe when you've done another week or two of your philosophy 101 course.

 

[Xenophanes]

Sorry, you're just too stupid for me. I can't be arsed with you. Maybe when you've done another week or two of your philosophy 101 course.

Hackenslash has run out of his own brand of criticism. Good discussion, my friend. Still, there is more to discuss. Oh, my can hackenslash be any more dogmatic? I think he need to cool off a little.

and actually no; my philosophy degree did not teach me any of this, it in fact teaches exacty in-line with what you say. That is "philsophy 101", as you put it: that theories have to be supported by evidence. Most philosophers accept the popular conception of science and teach it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Hackenslash has run out of his own brand of criticism.

I haven't run out of anything, I just don't waste my time with a certain degree of stupid.

Good discussion, my friend.

I'm not your friend.

Still, there is more to discuss. Oh, my can hackenslash be any more dogmatic?

[

Talk about one water heating receptacle casting aspersions at another for lack of albedo. :roll:

[quote I think he need to cool off a little.[/quote]

Ah, the amateur internet psychologist rears his fuckwitted head. Let us know how that works out for you.

and actually no; my philosophy degree

Alleged degree. Colour me skeptical.

 

[Xenophanes]

Colour me skeptical.

Oh, well. Someone does not believe someone else is studying a degree...who cares? Whether or not I have a degree has no bearing on whether what I am saying is true or not.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Agreed. I know quite a few people educated in philosophy to degree standard who talk nothing but bollocks.

I can get you a really cheap deal on robes and sandals.

 

[Xenophanes]

Agreed. I know quite a few people educated in philosophy to degree standard who talk nothing but bollocks.

I do not think your judgement is very reliable. So your assertion is probably bollocks.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I do not think

That might be the first thing you've said that I have no objection to.

your judgement is very reliable.

And there's the second.

So your assertion is probably bollocks.

Quite possibly.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Xenophanes, you agree that the conventional philosophical position is that theories need to be supported by evidence yet claim that this is actually untrue. On what basis?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

The claim that quantum effects somehow invalidates determinism does not mean that we have free will: random =/= free.

Kindest regards,

James

Quantum indertminacy is not randomness. This is mistaking The probability of an event with epistemic probability. Epistemic probability is fallacious. The former type of probability can be either a fequency type or a propensity type, I think the propensity type stands up to criticisms that the frequency type does not.

Determinacy means that all events are determined by the previous event. I think that laws do not determine, but forbid a set of events, this means they have a limit on what events can occur. Each event that can occur in any given situation is called a propensity.

I think you're mistaking the reason for my claim that we don't have free will.

The fact one can generate probabilistic distributions for quantum events at large numbers or energies does not mean that an event will happen nor does it negate the fact that, at the lowest level, individual quantum events are random and indeterminable. Also, there's a certain confusion in how the concept of causality is used in physics and everyday life.

We are the sum of our genes and environmental stimuli from one moment to the next.

Think of it as a mound of sand with more trickling onto it - which and how the falling grains of sand change the shape of the mound is not something that the mound can "choose".

The brain is governed by classical physics, electro-magnetism and (bio)chemistry, not quantum mechanics

One of the "determinants" of events is choices concious beings make, who themselves have propensities towards many (even novel), but limited behaviours, one of the propensities is towards abstraction, which allows them to have an evolutionary advantage, because then they can anticipate and act on their anticipations.

As hackenslash has noted, you're assuming that conscious beings make "choices", which suggests that you're someone who believes in the libertarian free-will of dualism.

This is yet another unwarranted assumption on your part.

Kindest regards,

James