John wrote:
Just to be clear on what I said, I'm only truing to understand S G R's point of view. I actually agree with what you've been writing (what I've read of it anyway as I haven't read the thread all the way through from the start).
I think I left out some bits in the middle of the thread.
S G R wrote:The fact that you don’t know which article it is that proves your point demonstrates that you don’t have any evidence.
I have read many mutually-supporting scientific texts involving this. I don't need to read through any of those articles to convince yourself. And I don't feel it's worth it to waste so much time quoting the relevant passages in those references in this thread as I doubt you'll change your mind any time soon. I've seen your ridiculous assertions on the Free Will Challenge thread and your refusal to acknowledge Psychonaut's refutations.
S G R wrote:It wasn’t me who attempted to use the authority of a dictionary instead of actually making a point.
Before any meaningful discussion can take place, there needs to be a consensus on what words actually mean. A dictionary is a neutral authority.
S G R wrote:It is the lack of support and gravity which starts the boulder falling and the ground which stops the boulder – neither of these things are the boulder.
It is the presence of nutrients which and its metabolism which causes the bacterium to multiply. The metabolism arose after an as yet unknown complicated chemical reaction occurred between ribonucleic acids, proteins and their friends.
S G R wrote:Hume pointed out that there is no evidence – logical or otherwise – that demonstrates any relationship between cause and effect.
I read the wikipedia entry on Hume and did not see your alleged demonstration.
S G R wrote:Calculating programmes all.
That's precisely what choice is. A cost-benefit calculation in relation to some predefined goal.
[quote="S G R""]It’s called having an idea.[/quote]A redundant idea, because those words already have definitions. Here's a better idea: Make up your own words for your new definitions rather than taking pre-existing ones.
S G R wrote:Why don’t you try to be a bit more honest? You don’t believe that freewill exists so you think any definition is meaningless. Quite why you believe this is unclear.
Not every definition is meaningless. Here's a possible, somewhat meaningful one:
SkepticWiki wrote:Compatibilists Who Believe In Free Will
The argument may be presented as follows:
When Incompatibilists say that they have no free will, what they mean, in part, is that the state of their brain, or their mind, determines their choices. But this determination is exactly what I mean by the phrase "free will".
S G R wrote:Are people not allowed to have a different point of view to yours?
Sure they are; and I'm allowed to criticize and ridicule them for it.
S G R wrote:If you find that arguing with me makes you feel a bit thick that doesn’t mean that I am the one causing it.
I don't feel that. Even if I did, your claim would not be a disproof proof.