Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2017 18:55:07 GMT
The only commonalities are your own apologist tactics and your fundamental disregard of basic reason in service to your own holy quest. There's nothing incoherent about the brain forming new ideas based on inputs and pondering. Your nonsensically-demanded incoherencies would be arbitrary if they weren't so transparently purposeful. It is of course still absurd to suggest that a creature picking what it feels and wants, and what it wants to feel and wants to want, regressing infinitely, is any part of any commonly accepted idea of free will.
What is incoherent is to propose that we choose how our brain forms our will or the decisions that we make. And few free will proponents would say "I choose what to think before I think it", but nevertheless, that is an unavoidable implication of indeterministic free will. It's much like some Christians will say that they believe in the literal truth of the whole Bible without getting into the nitty gritty of how Noah managed to fit 2 of every single species of animal onto the ark.
Absolutely deranged multiple levels deep. Both your claims that you give no import to the things you heavily proselytize as needed, and of course the fact of the obvious import you attach to your actions simultaneous with your steadfast belief that your actions could not possibly change the preset outcome that you believe has been unalterably fixed from the beginning of existence.
Unlike you, I am not making any special pleading for my own role in the chain of causality. My actions are fully caused by events leading up to them, and they will be part of a chain of causality which spurs other events in the future. The only difference between myself and the boulder rolling down the side of the cliff is the fact that I have a conscious grasp of the context of my own existence within that chain of causality.
Not even a little bit. As previously pointed out, that is a patently inane assertion. Bizarre behavior, although obviously not precluded, is in no way a requisite with free will.
If you only do what a sophisticated robot programmed with your personality would do, then where does free will come into it?
This just again shows your lunacy. That was an inference from the fact that there are multitudes of them that are honest and rational. Just some more of your inexplicable "reasoning" on display.
Which of them are honestly and rationally affirming the existence of libertarian free will?
They certainly can speculate; they're not typically so deranged or dishonest as to state as fact. Especially not coupled with the dishonesty and low tactics of the committed apologist.
Many of them do authoritatively state that free will (in the libertarian sense) does not exist, and give robust reasoning why it cannot exist which is much along the lines of what I have been propounding.
That's positively incoherent.
Our brains never cease activity while alive. Forming thoughts is one of its primary, non-stop jobs. Maybe one day we'll have a good idea of how those thoughts form and what they and consciousness even actually are.
Our brains never cease activity while alive. Forming thoughts is one of its primary, non-stop jobs. Maybe one day we'll have a good idea of how those thoughts form and what they and consciousness even actually are.
It forms a chain of thoughts which appear to simply emerge out of the ether, not thoughts which have been screened and pre-approved by the free-will centre of the brain.