Quote:
Originally Posted by grindy
I just told you that even if there is randomness that doesn't undermine our point that free will doesn't exist.
|
I already said that before you said it.
I never said it disproves free will I said it disproves predetermination.
Don't strawman me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McClasky
To make a decision you must believe in free will, even if you don't intellectually believe in it. It's how the human brain works. I employ cognitive dissonance simply to decide to take a drink of water. Take that away and I imagine I'd probably die of dehydration.
|
You're self contradicting because you're confused. If there is no free will then you're never really making a decision so you don't need to believe in something that you don't really believe to do something you can't do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McClasky
Yes it is.
|
If you mean that it's meaningless as a concept then how could you argue it doesn't exist yet argue that you need to believe in it? See, you're confused. If you mean it's meaningless as in it doesn't give anything meaning, then I agree. Free will, or the lack of it, is doesn't give anything meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McClasky
Our awareness does not equal an ability to choose. Simply to observe.
|
The question wasn't if it gives us the ability to choose (which it would if free will exists) the question is what makes us different from pool balls. Awareness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McClasky
I've noticed.
|
Neither are you, so don't get all condescending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug McClasky
No it's literally an argument Christians use to leave the door open for God by by relying on ignorance of quantum mechanics, just replace "free will" with "God". That's the joke. We don't know that quantum mechanics are random, simply that they don't appear to follow the same rules as other matter. Calling it evidence of randomness is stupid.
|
At this time we have determined that quantum physics are random from what we currently understand. Sure, we
could be ignorant to other information that would prove it's not random, but at this time there is no uncertainty in the language of the scientists calling them random. Far different from using ignorance as a crutch.
Meanwhile, there is uncertainty in the understanding of free will and if it exists. The reports that it
probably doesn't exist also comes from a limited understanding. Just as with the randomness of quantum particles, what they've studied has brought them to that conclusion with the only difference being that they are less certain that free will doesn't exist than they are with the conclusion that quantum particles behave randomly.
So your point is blatantly ironic.