Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:20 am
EVERY 'action' required a previous action.
To me, however, an act of 'free will' does NOT "require" ANY thing. However, from EVERY act of 'free will' a further action, naturally, occurs, anyway.
Your words here, AGAIN, are NOT helping 'me', at all, understand 'you' better. For example, from the very first word of your sentence I have ABSOLUTELY NO idea NOR clue as to what you are referring to NOT meaning.
Was just using thee ACTUAL word that the word "it" here was referring instead of using the 'it' word REALLY to hard to do?
Or, did you NOT use 'that word' for some other reason?
If yes, then what was that reason, EXACTLY?
IF 'you' EVER get around to EXPLAINING what 'free will' is, to 'you', then 'we' can START LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING 'this'.
Until then what 'you' are talking about and/or referring to here, ONLY 'you' KNOW.
LOL There is NO dispute that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. So, 'you' do NOT need to keep 'trying to' argue for this conclusion.
What 'you' NEED to do, from my perspective, is just SHOW and PROVE how 'you' arrived at that conclusion, in a logically reasoned way. So far, 'you' have NOT YET.
Also, what I was putting forward, through a clarifying question, was; HAS 'free will' ALWAYS coexisted with 'determinism', or, did 'free' will' come to exist, somewhere along the evolutionary line of 'things'?
I suggest STOP 'trying to' argue that 'free will' and 'determinism' coexist. To me, I think this is irrefutable anyway. Instead I suggest you START LOOKING AT the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I am putting forward, to you, and then just Honestly responding to them, ONLY. That way 'you' will then ACTUALLY find, and thus obtain, thee ACTUAL PROOF, which you are 'trying to' SHOW here.