Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Post Rating: 0
Britishk wrote:
I am very aware of the determinist argument and it fails because it is based in faith. Perhaps you should've read the entire thread in your MySpace before you go off half-ass'd like this.
If you were genuinely aware of the determinist argument, then you'd understand why your first sentence is a non-sequitur. This makes your second sentence little more than an ad hominem.
Britishk wrote:
So, what combination of these things caused me to type these words? Was this post genetically pre-programmed? Show me how. Was this post conditioned? What conditioned it and how did the conditioning affect body?
Uhh, the precise combination of components doesn't detract from the point that these components are determined. As such, your point here is an evasion, not a challenge. Since I've identified the determined components of free will, as per your request, I therefore return to the (implicit) question of my original post, if you subtract all the determined components of free will, then what's left? I must note though, as I notice a further ad hominem looming on the horizon, I'm less than confident about a productive response.
Britishk wrote:
You simply throw out words about disciplines you barely know and expect that to stand as proof.
Here we go, now, unless you're claiming extra-sensory powers to accompany your supernaturalist account of free will, then this is an ad hominem. I was hoping for something more sophisticated. Oh well.
Britishk wrote:
My point exactly!
The irony of your agreement with someone who you construe to barely know about the disciplines in question is striking. And clearly, this is not your point, for as you go on to say: "Just like the possibility of an unobserved cause of this post is unfalsifiable."
If you were genuinely sensitive to the point, then you'd realise its implications for your case. So, that just about wraps up your idea of free will. Have you anything more to offer, Gina?
Britishk wrote:
No Martin. You could easilly falsify my notion of free will by showing sufficient cause for this post in the absence of my free will.
Good luck.
Of course your free will caused your post, just not the non-determinist variety that you claim. Now, you give the appearance of understanding the principle of falsifiability, so you must also understand why your notion of free will is, like the non-existence of little purple men on a planet orbiting alfa centauri, unfalsifiable, and why, therefore, your claim as to how to resolve the issue a bit of a howler. Hint: by definition, we cannot falsify something which is not determined.
PS:
Britishk wrote:
Slowmoe, the problem is that you have stated the event in the negative. There is never a cause of something not happening.
Damn Gina! The car wouldn't start because the earthing strap had come away. The sun didn't rise because it had been eaten by a giant interstellar turtle. The person couldn't exercise their free will because they were dead. Finding the cause which prevents a certain set of circumstances from occuring is different to attempting to prove a negative. But you knew that, right? *Wink
All times are GMT - 1 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12
Page 12 of 12
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
