Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 21:12:21 GMT
tpfkar
You should get articles from elsewhere than religious apology sites. Of course what we live and experience is evidence. You should bone up on what a non-sequitur is. Your pronouncements of what the brain "actually does" is, as typical, thoroughly amusing. And it's not just your desire to see the death of superstition, even though your entire outlook bathes in them, it's that you've stated outright that you need to kill the idea free will in order to undermine religion. Finally, the ability to provide cowards and the mentally ill death pills is not a liberty, it's a sociopathy.
Your answer was a non-sequitur in the way it was expressed, as it was ostensibly incongruous with the discussion. The fact that we experience making a choice doesn't mean that we choose that choice before we choose it. What we're actually experiencing is all of the myriad different causal factors that interplay and produce a decision. When we make a decision, we are thinking. We cannot direct ourselves on which thoughts to think, as thoughts emerge without us choosing those thoughts first. Usually this decision will be in line with our normal preferences and predisposition, unless external circumstances force us to act against our own preferences (or unless we're trying to prove to ourselves that we have free will by choosing an undesirable option).
The impossibility of libertarian free will, combined with the problem of evil is one of the most efficient arguments to dismiss the possibility of the creator being both omnibenevolent and omniscient. And the argument in favour of the right to die is not that it allows would-be killers to get their jollies off of playing a role in someone's death, it is to give suffering individuals the choice to reject continued suffering.
No. And so your rest is irrelevant, and regardless, no experiment but a conjectural thought can be applied to it. And here's a knowledge bomb that's going to positively blow your mind - the ones with the free will are the ones that act according to their wants and traits, what people have ever considered as "free will".
So the ones with free will are the ones who appear to be acting in a manner consistent with hard determinism - with the deterministic factors being their own predisposition, biases and preferences? That is not "what people have ever considered as "free will"", because for most people free will is integral to their religious faith. Any other form of "free will" other than full on libertarian free will (in which one can act against one's nature and make a choice with no determining factors at all) is incompatible with most types of theism. An individual needs to be able to accept Christ as their saviour even if every rudiment of their being is predisposed to reject Christ. The type of free will that is compatible with determinism is something that is espoused by secular philosophers.
And I'll pass on your cartoon video. I'm sure it wouldn't convince "hipsters" anyway. Perhaps you could learn to articulate better yourself?
It basically shows that there is no way to empirically recognise the difference between an actor which possesses free will and that which does not. It cannot be measured or observed in any form, and it is likely that Artificial Intelligence, although not conscious, will some day be able to emulate the behaviour of a human who would be considered to have free will (whilst the AI unit would be deemed not to have free will, based on some nebulous and/or arbitrary criteria).