Search results for query: *

All you do is show attitude and whine. You invoked 'arbitrary algorithms in defense of compatibilist position (which you claimed to be, yet offered no explanation on how 'arbitratry algoriths' relate to determinism or the compatibalist definition of free will....which is basically to 'act...

As I said, Jarhyn claims to be a compatibilist, yet he is using 'arbitrary algorithms' as a means of defending compatibalism when there is nothing arbitrary within a deterministic system as it is defined. It's the compatibilist definition of free will that's flawed. It is flawed because it...

Considering that it is 'a part of me' doesn't resolve the issue of free will, be it compatibilist, Libertarian or the common notion of being able to take nay option in any given instance of decision making, not when that 'part of me' does not act freely according to your will. Where there no...

What you fail to understand is that compatibilist free will has absolutely nothing to do your 'arbitrary algorithms' defense, nor any of the things you mention above. Zilch. All bogus defensive accusations. That your whole line of defense is false. So either you still don't understand...

It's not. The point was that determinism as defined by Jarhyn, does not relate his 'arbitrary algorithm' defence of free will. Jarhyn claims to be a compatibilist, yet uses - with no real explanation, 'arbitrary algorithms' to support his claim, which appears to be some mish mash of...

Trickle down economics?

You are not a compatibilist because you disregard the given terms and conditions of determinism and assert your own conditions, the way you wants things to be. In other words, your position is not logical. Please pay attention: determinism is not an arbitrary process. Each and every event...

This dispute is compatibilism versus incompatibilism. As it happens that I argue for incompatibilism, I don't expect compatibilists to agree with what I say, in fact It'd be surprising if they did. The accusation that I don't pay attention is bogus. It's bogus because the argument is...

That's quite a poor response. It's almost as if you are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Which, given that your barrel has been empty for some time, that is most likely the case.....especially with absurdities such as 'computers have consciousness and free will,'' conflating function with...

Brains function according their neural architecture, networks and structures, not will, not free will. The abilities of a brain are not a matter of 'free will.'' Whatever a brain can or cannot do is determined by its physical makeup. Will is related to its article, the article of will may be...

It seems that Politics comes down to appearances, where just appearing to address an issue is assumed to be sufficient to keep the voters happy.

The brain is an information processor. Of course it can extrapolate. Not only that, it can generate a mental representation of the world and self and respond to events as the information is acquired and processed. And on top of that, that amazing ability has absolutely nothing to do with free...

Are you being compelled to respond? I didn't set out to 'create a strawman' of what you said. What you said was - ''And yet it has been demonstrated to you that this is false, but you ignore the demonstrations and keep repeating yourself'' - and that is what I responded to, pointing out...

Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated. The opposite is true, that there is more than sufficient evidence to show that the brain is the sole agency of mind, consciousness, thought and response, and that it is state and condition of the brain that determines how you think and what you do. I...

I don't post reactions. I respond to the issue as it stands. I point out, time and time again, how and where compatibilism fails as an argument for free will. Yet the point of failure has yet to be addressed. Where each and every time it is brought up, the response slides away and the focus...

You are not the only one. I have been caught in that loop for a number of years. That we are both caught in this loop appears to prove my case. I keep repeating because the same erroneous objections keep being invoked. The issue of the failure of compatibilism has been addressed...

Faith and science appear to be incompatible. Religious belief rests on faith, science examines, questions and tests....

'Could have done otherwise' essentially means being able to choose any one of a number of realizable options at any given instance of decision making, which also means here and now. That if you are presented with multiple options, here and now, at this very point in time (or any point in...

Rather than 'someone in authority,' it's more about what is said It's not about Silverstein or his qualifications at all, but his criticism of compatibilism. He's not the only one to point out the reasons for failure of compatibalism. I've quoted any number of sources saying the same...

I conflate nothing. Compatibilists give a definition of determinism, and that is what I refer to. You should have grasped at least that much by now. For example; ''However, in order for determinism to be true, it must include all events. For example, determinism cannot exclude the effects...