There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[untermensche]

Each of your posts is demonstration enough that you're unable to relate to what other people say.

Your constant misunderstandings of what I am saying prove your English sucks.

You are a parrot of English. You know a few artificial rules.

But your understanding is partial and warped.

Your English sucks.

 

[untermensche]

The game never began for you. You were never in the game. Your claim of smart consciousness in control of a dumb brain is patently absurd. There is nothing to support the notion.

All evidence points clearly to brain agency.

But no matter how many explanations are provided, you cannot give them consideration. You can only dismiss. You dismiss everything, neuroscience, case studies, experiments, evidence, what researchers are saying, everything must be dismissed in order for you to maintain your smart consciousness as being the jockey of a brain.

Of course there is something to support the notion. What you just did. You freely decided which ideas to include and which to discard in your response. That is how I have some understanding of it. Because they were ideas chosen by a mind not a random event.

You have faith not reason.

Connect the dots.

Consciousness arises somehow and in some way. And the brain is somehow involved.

Therefore what?

Connect the dots.

It's hopeless. You just cannot take into account the mechanism and means of your conscious experience of self and perceived agency....an experience that unravels whenever the actual agent, the brain, suffers damage or chemical imbalances...at which point the illusion of conscious self in control is revealed.

Connect the dots. You never connect the dots. You simply make your leap of faith every time. You jump from: Consciousness arises somehow in the brain to Consciousness cannot influence the brain with nothing in between. You jump a huge chasm with your leap of faith.

Consciousness arises in some unknown manner therefore what? Connect the dots.

You have faith not knowledge.

 

[Kharakov]

Free will: will that is free from the constraints of logic.

 

[Speakpigeon]

There he is the french Gregory Peck on the beach. Of course it's logical. There's still time brother.

The above is about the only way I can express something classified as 'free' anything.

Your English is so unstilted you must know I can't understand you one bit.

And me, I thought all the people would could have talked of Gregory Peck were long dead by now. How old are you exactly?

So, what is it he'd done exactly, poor dead Gregory?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Your constant misunderstandings of what I am saying prove your English sucks.

Yeah but love is ultimately based on a profound misunderstanding, so this means there's still hope for the two of us.

You are a parrot of English. You know a few artificial rules.

But your understanding is partial and warped.

Your English sucks.

Only when asked.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Sucks is probably too distant a concept for you to fully understand.

You have become fixated on one meaning.

Like the dog that humps every leg it encounters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is just getting much too boring for me. I'll leave you here to bore yourself all on your own. Sorry.
EB

 

[bilby]

Your weakness in English is excusable.

What I wrote can be interpreted by a true English speaker to just mean small is included in the definition, which it is.

It is a redundancy to say "small little eyes".

Maybe in French you are better.

You should probably save your ire for the weakness in English displayed by the authors of the Cambridge English Dictionary, who use the same phrase in their very first example of usage of the word 'beady'.

And that means what genius?

Is it now not a redundancy?

It is now not evidence of weakness in English.

Don't bother trying to move the goalposts; You were being an arse, and you got caught out. Now I suggest that you stop trying to 'win' arguments by being so rude that your opponents stop challenging your bullshit, and start using logic and reason - unless your objective is to be laughed at and thought a rude and ignorant fool, in which case, keep up the good work.

 

[untermensche]

Don't bother trying to move the goalposts; You were being an arse, and you got caught out.

My claim was that it is a redundancy. And it is.

And you never knew it because you don't know many things.

Who's the arse?

 

[untermensche]

This is just getting much too boring for me. I'll leave you here to bore yourself all on your own. Sorry.
EB

Talking about you and your partial understanding of my language IS boring.

 

[DBT]

You seem to be missing something rather crucial--both obvious and crucial--which is that the two examples you voluntarily left out both talk of something being free from something else, that is to say, free relatively to a given condition or circumstance, as indeed explained in the definition itself. Look again here:

Original definition of "free"
Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance: a healthy animal, free of disease; people free from need.

Sorry that I should have to italicise and underline all the relevant points but you appear to have a serious problem understanding even straightforward English sentences.

I am missing nothing.

The problem still lies with your apparent inability to grasp context and context related examples.

Therefore you still miss the point. While 'free from' is a legitimate part of the definition and is not being ignored or disputed, it is context that determines application in any given instance, an animal that is free of disease, etc.

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?'' Disease? Lumbago? Arthritis?....what? Will is free from what?

So, now, you do understand what is a given condition or circumstance, don't you?

Wake up Noddy, the given definition of free gives a couple of examples of conditions or circumstances, free from disease, etc.

Now try to apply exactly the same principles to 'will'

What condition or circumstance is 'will' free from?

What allows us to define 'will as being 'free?'

 

[DBT]

Free will: will that is free from the constraints of logic.

Quite right. That's worth a box of Cigars.

 

[DBT]

It's hopeless. You just cannot take into account the mechanism and means of your conscious experience of self and perceived agency....an experience that unravels whenever the actual agent, the brain, suffers damage or chemical imbalances...at which point the illusion of conscious self in control is revealed.

Connect the dots. You never connect the dots. You simply make your leap of faith every time. You jump from: Consciousness arises somehow in the brain to Consciousness cannot influence the brain with nothing in between. You jump a huge chasm with your leap of faith.

Consciousness arises in some unknown manner therefore what? Connect the dots.

You have faith not knowledge.

Nah, that's still you with your 'smart consciousness as the Jockey of a Dumb Brain' - an idea that nobody who works in the field of neuroscience supports.

Consciousness is the work of a brain. That is what the evidence supports. That is the evolved function of a brain, to generate an internal 'map' of the world and self in order to respond to its objects and events.

How the brain generates its internal subjective representation of the world and self is not known...but not knowing how does not alter the fact that it is the brain that is forming consciousness.

Quote;
''There is evidence from clinical groups for the relative independence of social cognition from other aspects of cognition. For example, individuals with either frontal or prefrontal cortex damage show impaired social behavior and functioning, despite the retention of intact cognitive skills such as memory and language (15–17). The fact that social cognition can become selectively impaired after such an injury while sparing nonsocial cognition suggests that unique neural circuits subserve social cognition. A similar dissociation between social cognition and nonsocial cognitive skills is often observed in persons with prosopagnosia, who show selective impairments in the perceptions of faces but preserved perception for nonsocial stimuli (18). Such findings have led Kanwisher (18) to conclude that facial processing is a result of domain-specific, rather than general, neural mechanisms.''

"It helps explain why people with damage to the OFC behave the way they do," he said. "They have the ability to learn normally about their world, but they have an area of their brains that is sluggish and inflexible in guiding their behavior, trapping them in a prison of habit, so to speak. These findings give us insight into how the brain is organized."

 

[The AntiChris]

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?''

You clearly have absolute confidence in your disproof of free will by dictionary definition of 'free' but some of of us just don't find it particularly convincing.

In order to help us understand your argument can you cite any other source (literature/serious philosopher) for your 'disproof of free will by dictionary definition'? I've never seen this argument made by anyone other than you.

 

[DBT]

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?''

You clearly have absolute confidence in your disproof of free will by dictionary definition of 'free' but some of of us just don't find it particularly convincing.

In order to help us understand your argument can you cite any other source (literature/serious philosopher) for your 'disproof of free will by dictionary definition'? I've never seen this argument made by anyone other than you.

That ''some of you'' find it unconvincing does not surprise me. Nor does it mean anything. The argument is straightforward. That you express the use of free as a ''dictionary definition' shows your unwillingness or resistance to understanding what I said.

The word free and the concept of freedom have a set of defined meanings relating to usage and context. The role of a dictionary being to provide a list of definitions relating to usage and context.

If the word 'free' or the concept of 'freedom' is not being fairly or accurately represented in the given definitions then that should be addressed and a more accurate definition proposed.

That is what ''some of you'' who object to my use of ''dictionary definitions' should do....provide your own definitions of free or freedom and describe why they are better and why they apply.

As it stands, I have seen no rational rebuttals, only emotional denials, snide innuendo and baseless dismissal.

A poor effort by this so called ''some of us'' members of the opposition.

I'm out of time. I'll take it up tomorrow.

 

[The AntiChris]

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?''

You clearly have absolute confidence in your disproof of free will by dictionary definition of 'free' but some of of us just don't find it particularly convincing.

In order to help us understand your argument can you cite any other source (literature/serious philosopher) for your 'disproof of free will by dictionary definition'? I've never seen this argument made by anyone other than you.

That ''some of you'' find it unconvincing does not surprise me. Nor does it mean anything. The argument is straightforward. That you express the use of free as a ''dictionary definition' shows your unwillingness or resistance to understanding what I said.

The word free and the concept of freedom have a set of defined meanings relating to usage and context. The role of a dictionary being to provide a list of definitions relating to usage and context.

If the word 'free' or the concept of 'freedom' is not being fairly or accurately represented in the given definitions then that should be addressed and a more accurate definition proposed.

That is what ''some of you'' who object to my use of ''dictionary definitions' should do....provide your own definitions of free or freedom and describe why they are better and why they apply.

As it stands, I have seen no rational rebuttals, only emotional denials, snide innuendo and baseless dismissal.

A poor effort by this so called ''some of us'' members of the opposition.

I'm out of time. I'll take it up tomorrow.

You really should try to chill a little.

I look forward to seeing the links to other sources of your argument.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I am missing nothing.

The problem still lies with your apparent inability to grasp context and context related examples.

Therefore you still miss the point. While 'free from' is a legitimate part of the definition and is not being ignored or disputed, it is context that determines application in any given instance, an animal that is free of disease, etc.

So let's try to apply the word 'free' to 'will' just as shown the examples provided by the dictionary; ''free from'' --- so, what precisely is 'will' free from?'' Disease? Lumbago? Arthritis?....what? Will is free from what?

So, now, you do understand what is a given condition or circumstance, don't you?

Wake up Noddy, the given definition of free gives a couple of examples of conditions or circumstances, free from disease, etc.

Now try to apply exactly the same principles to 'will'

What condition or circumstance is 'will' free from?

What allows us to define 'will as being 'free?'

Talking of grasping context, nobody, not even Noddy, defines will as free. At most, you could say that talking of free will suggests that some of our will, i.e. the part of our will that is free, is free of something.

My will is free from so many things I couldn't possibly provide an exhaustive list. But I can put it in a nutshell: my will is free from most of whatever may be going on in the whole of the universe. Which sounds like good enough to make the use of "free will" legitimate. It's not even controversial.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Free will: Free of any constraint at all.

Like how I freely change my perception from one cube to another while looking at a Necker cube.

I change my perception at will.

Nothing constrains me.

This is just an example that can be clearly seen but every sentence every person writes is an expression of their unconstrained will.

Free will is the freedom to do things of your choosing. The freedom to make a final choice when many options are available.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Free will: will that is free from the constraints of logic.

Quite right. That's worth a box of Cigars.

Don't forget reality. Free will is obviously free from the constraints of logic, but also free from the constraints of reality.

 

[bilby]

Free will: Free of any constraint at all.

Like how I freely change my perception from one cube to another while looking at a Necker cube.

I change my perception at will.

Nothing constrains me.

This is just an example that can be clearly seen but every sentence every person writes is an expression of their unconstrained will.

Free will is the freedom to do things of your choosing. The freedom to make a final choice when many options are available.

I wonder sometimes whether you are happy in your incurious little world, where nothing is a mystery and everything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions can be dismissed as a lie.

I also wonder whether it is arrogance, or infantilism, or a combination of the two that keeps you trapped in that tiny worldview; and whether attempts to break you out of that prison are immoral, because they will make you sad if they succeed; moral, because they will give you opportunities for great wonder and joy if they succeed; or amoral because it's bloody obvious that they can never succeed.