Free will deniers

[Estro Felino]

So, to you philosophy is like theology? Distinct from reality and not influenced by it?
Well, yes, when reality plays no role in your thinking, then you can assume anything you want, even free will.

What I meant was that believing in an afterlife or in the soul play a significant role in the doctrine of free will.

 

[Heyo]

What I meant was that believing in an afterlife or in the soul play a significant role in the doctrine of free will.

Yes, I have heard that argument. It goes something like this:
We have a soul which has free will. The brain is like an antenna that receives the commands of the soul. If the brain gets damaged or drugged, it can no longer receive the soul's message perfectly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, I have heard that argument. It goes something like this:
We have a soul which has free will. The brain is like an antenna that receives the commands of the soul. If the brain gets damaged or drugged, it can no longer receive the soul's message perfectly.

We are all free. Nobody can harm our soul, or impose something on us.
The notion of freedom is present in all European constitutions.

 

[Estro Felino]

Our choice depends on the inclination of the person, on the environment in which we were raised, what kind of education (religious or otherwise) was given to us, what were our experiences in life and what is our situation at present. What we choose is not free of that, though you may term it as 'free will'.

Man is not predisposed to repeat the same mistakes as his ancestors.
Because he used free will, to distance himself from them.
It's not a process of imitation.

 

[Truthseeker]

I never said prople do not have 'Free Wyll

@Trailblazer was talking to someone else, and you are replying as if she was talking to you? Was there a previous thing you said to her that was similar? I'm confused.

All human legal systems need improvement

I agree with that.

Science is involved, and as usual your abundant voluntary ignorance shines. Science does not prove anything.

You are right that science bears on the question, but I don't like your "abundant voluntary ignorance" statement. That is being judgmental of her, and not even fair. Everybody doesn't study science. People have their own specialties and interests.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Man is not predisposed to repeat the same mistakes as his ancestors.

I wish it was so. We are still believing in God, soul and messengers.

 

[danieldemol]

You are right that science bears on the question, but I don't like your "abundant voluntary ignorance" statement. That is being judgmental of her, and not even fair. Everybody doesn't study science. People have their own specialties and interests.

Sorry but to refuse to study science then make statements on what it does or does not say is in my view voluntary ignorance. It was a fair judgement and not everyone shares your belief that it is wrong to express disapproval of those who make statements that are wilfully ignorant.

If we fail to express disapproval of those who promote wilfull ignorance we are failing to provide environmental inputs that can reduce an environment of superstition and I personally doubt such failure is beneficial to humanity.

 

[Truthseeker]

Sorry but to refuse to study science then make statements on what it does or does not say is in my view voluntary ignorance. It was a fair judgement and not everyone shares your belief that it is wrong to express disapproval of those who make statements that are wilfully ignorant.

If we fail to express disapproval of those who promote wilfull ignorance we are failing to provide environmental inputs that can reduce an environment of superstition and I personally doubt such failure is beneficial to humanity.

Prove willful ignorance.

 

[danieldemol]

Prove willful ignorance.

You said she didn't study science and her statements concerning what science allegedly does not say are on display for all to see.

In my opinion that's wilful ignorance to refuse to study a subject whilst making statements on what it does or doesn't say.

 

[Truthseeker]

I don't think you are thinking this through clearly, @danieldemol. Take some time to think it through. Ponder it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Prove willful ignorance.

This whole thing is so childish which is why I refuse to take part in it.

To say that science has proven that humans have no free will is as idiotic as saying that science has proven that there is no God.
Science has its limitations just like religion has its limitations, but free will falls under the purview of religion and philosophy, not science.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't think you are thinking this through clearly, @danieldemol. Take some time to think it through. Ponder it.

Why don't you point out what you see as the flaw and we will take it from there.

 

[danieldemol]

This whole thing is so childish which is why I refuse to take part in it.

Said while providing another post thereby clearly taking part in it.

To say that science has proven that humans have no free will is as idiotic as saying that science has proven that there is no God.

To say that science proves anything is ignorance. Science only provides evidence.

Science has its limitations just like religion has its limitations, but free will falls under the purview of religion and philosophy, not science.

I disagree, scientists are already studying which regions of the brain are responsible for things like empathy wich effect our decision-making process. Not to mention the brain science I already provided above and which you appear to have ignored regarding substance abuse, the brain, and brain deformation and its effect on behavior.

You seem to be under in my opinion the false impression that when religion makes a ruling on something it automatically becomes the domain of religion. Not so in my view where it includes pronouncement on the material world such as the workings of the physical brain which can be studied.

 

[Truthseeker]

Why don't you point out what you see as the flaw and we will take it from there.

I just realized that I don't really know what she has studied. Just think it through. I don't like talking to you. You tend to rile me up, though I try not to get riled up, or show it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Haven't I debunked that argument already? (Multiple times.)

No, not really.

If the criminal isn't acting out of free will then neither is the judge. She is just as restrained by her biological makeup and experience - and by the law. You can't condemn her for doing what she has to do.

Both the criminal and the judge are acting out of free will. The criminal is condemned for committing a crime. The judge is only doing her job.

 

[Truthseeker]

To say that science proves anything is ignorance. Science only provides evidence.

You're not thinking it through. She never said that. You make knee-jerk statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

Said while providing another post thereby clearly taking part in it.

Not with you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't you think that it's free will that determines our mishaps?

Yes. What determines mishaps is either our own free will or another person's free will decision and action that affected us.

 

[danieldemol]

You're not thinking it through. She never said that. You make knee-jerk statements.

I did not say she said it, I was disclaiming that I said "science proves..." which is what she accused me of saying in her knee jerk statement which you blindly ignored because you are acting as her partisan instead of trying to remain objective in my view.

 

[danieldemol]

I just realized that I don't really know what she has studied. Just think it through. I don't like talking to you. You tend to rile me up, though I try not to get riled up, or show it.

Ok, so you blindly rushed to her defence as a partisan without checking if what you were saying is even true.

No problem. We are human and make mistakes. Ill accept your apology upon deliverance.