Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[BigMike]

Henry, 'free will,' as something supposedly lacking mass, charge, or any other physical property

Shows how much you know. I -- a free will -- am 5' 8", and I weigh 150 lb.

I have mass, physicality, and umph.

Fine, Henry, so how do you define the "free" in "free will"? If your "free will" clocks in at 150 pounds, isn’t it at the complete mercy of gravity, friction, and every force acting on it? What’s so "free" about being yanked around by momentum every time you trip on the sidewalk? Is your free will free to float off into the sky if it wants, or does it have to wait for the rest of you to buy a plane ticket? If that’s freedom, I’d hate to see captivity!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Coincidentally, I am working out the details of a new subsection in The 14-Week Email Course that deals on the mysteries of levitation.

[henry quirk]

how do you define the "free" in "free will"?

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.

As I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

[henry quirk]

Coincidentally, I am working out the details of a new subsection in The 14-Week Email Course that deals on the mysteries of *levitation.

Now *that I want in on.

How much, and where do I send the check?

[BigMike]

how do you define the "free" in "free will"?

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.

As I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Ah, Henry, the self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, so generous to grace us with yet another stream of intellectual sewage. You claim to have "already explained" the "free" in "free will," yet your definition boils down to little more than a laughable tautology: "a person is the source of their choice." Bravo, philosopher-king! You’ve managed to restate the problem without solving a single piece of it.

You prattle on about choices "not being necessitated by prior events," yet conveniently ignore the fact that all choices—yes, even yours, oh mighty free-willed one—require a brain operating under the constraints of physics and biology. Are you the "source" of your brain’s structure? Did you handcraft your neurons in a cosmic workshop? No? Then kindly explain how you’re anything but a product of prior events and external forces.

But the pièce de résistance is your declaration that I’m an "example, not an opponent." Oh, Henry, that’s rich coming from someone whose arguments are so hollow they make a scarecrow look like a professor. You dismiss me as a "Roomba" because you can’t face the fact that your "free will" fantasy is as credible as believing the Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle. Keep spinning, Henry—it’s entertaining to watch you trip over your own contradictions while pretending to stand tall.

[henry quirk]

nada

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

[BigMike]

nada

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

So, Henry, let me get this straight. You just finished proclaiming that your "free will" is—you—your physical, meat-and-bones self. And now you’re calling me "Meat Machine"? The irony is almost poetic, if it weren’t so tragic. By your own admission, your so-called free will is tied to your body, your neurons, your flesh—a "meat machine," if ever there was one.

But hey, if the shoe fits, maybe you should wear it. Just don’t trip over your own contradictions while trying to pretend it’s a badge of honor.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A side benefit, reported by 85% of those who subscribe to The Course®, is tremendously improved agility and flexibility. The whole body is filled with lightness and buoyancy.

In my own case just the other day I tripped over an uneven sidewalk and performed a triple in-air forward somersault and landed cooly on my feet as if nothing. Surrounding pedestrians cheered!

Mike, please, consider taking The Course®, not merely to better your gymnastics but — Good God man! — you bore to tears!

[accelafine]

A side benefit, reported by 85% of those who subscribe to The Course®, is tremendously improved agility and flexibility. The whole body is filled with lightness and buoyancy.

In my own case just the other day I tripped over an uneven sidewalk and performed a triple in-air forward somersault and landed cooly on my feet as if nothing. Surrounding pedestrians cheered!

Mike, please, consider taking The Course®, not merely to better your gymnastics but — Good God man! — you bore to tears!

I don't think he's entirely human, but boring he most certainly is not. You, on the other hand...

[accelafine]

how do you define the "free" in "free will"?

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.

As I say: libertarian free will/agent causation means a person's choice is not necessarily rooted in prior events, external forces, or internal drives. To be a free will means he is the source of his choice, he's the cause, and, therefore, he's responsible for his choice.

He may be, probably is, informed and influenced by prior events, external forces, and internal drives, but he, his choices, and his acts, aren't necessitated by prior events, external forces, and internal drives.

I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Ah, Henry, the self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, so generous to grace us with yet another stream of intellectual sewage. You claim to have "already explained" the "free" in "free will," yet your definition boils down to little more than a laughable tautology: "a person is the source of their choice." Bravo, philosopher-king! You’ve managed to restate the problem without solving a single piece of it.

You prattle on about choices "not being necessitated by prior events," yet conveniently ignore the fact that all choices—yes, even yours, oh mighty free-willed one—require a brain operating under the constraints of physics and biology. Are you the "source" of your brain’s structure? Did you handcraft your neurons in a cosmic workshop? No? Then kindly explain how you’re anything but a product of prior events and external forces.

But the pièce de résistance is your declaration that I’m an "example, not an opponent." Oh, Henry, that’s rich coming from someone whose arguments are so hollow they make a scarecrow look like a professor. You dismiss me as a "Roomba" because you can’t face the fact that your "free will" fantasy is as credible as believing the Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle. Keep spinning, Henry—it’s entertaining to watch you trip over your own contradictions while pretending to stand tall.

I've been trying to get Mr. Quirk to define the 'freedom' that he's always banging on about for yonks but his 'answer' is always the same: 'I have already done that'. It doesn't matter how far back you go it's always the same. Like a meal that's always 'leftovers', where you never discover what the 'orignal' meal was (because there wasn't one). As far as I've been able to decipher, it's simply 'law of the jungle', with Henry sitting in the middle of the jungle with his infinitely loaded gun...

[BigMike]

Already explained that, Mike. You need to keep up. Me, I'm not tryin' to convert anyone, so, unlike you, I'm not gonna endlessly repeat myself.



I already know you don't agree or understand, so don't waste your time writin' one of your AI-assisted mini-essays.

I don't give a flip what a Roomba like you thinks. At this point, you're an example, not an opponent.

Ah, Henry, the self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, so generous to grace us with yet another stream of intellectual sewage. You claim to have "already explained" the "free" in "free will," yet your definition boils down to little more than a laughable tautology: "a person is the source of their choice." Bravo, philosopher-king! You’ve managed to restate the problem without solving a single piece of it.

You prattle on about choices "not being necessitated by prior events," yet conveniently ignore the fact that all choices—yes, even yours, oh mighty free-willed one—require a brain operating under the constraints of physics and biology. Are you the "source" of your brain’s structure? Did you handcraft your neurons in a cosmic workshop? No? Then kindly explain how you’re anything but a product of prior events and external forces.

But the pièce de résistance is your declaration that I’m an "example, not an opponent." Oh, Henry, that’s rich coming from someone whose arguments are so hollow they make a scarecrow look like a professor. You dismiss me as a "Roomba" because you can’t face the fact that your "free will" fantasy is as credible as believing the Earth is balanced on the back of a giant turtle. Keep spinning, Henry—it’s entertaining to watch you trip over your own contradictions while pretending to stand tall.

I've been trying to get Mr. Quirk to define the 'freedom' that he's always banging on about for yonks but his 'answer' is always the same: 'I have already done that'. It doesn't matter how far back you go it's always the same. Like a meal that's always 'leftovers', where you never discover what the 'orignal' meal was (because there wasn't one). As far as I've been able to decipher, it's simply 'law of the jungle', with Henry sitting in the middle of the jungle with his infinitely loaded gun...

Absolutely, accelafine, you’ve hit the nail on the head—or perhaps it’s more like a pinball machine where the ball just keeps bouncing back to "I already explained that."

[promethean75]

I know it's crazy. Even Janis Joplin has done more philosophy of freewill than Henry.

[promethean75]

Keep pushing 'em and he's gonna start dropping Penrose quotes you better watchit, guy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The issue has been settled. There is no doubt. Absolutely none. You, me, that asshole over there: we make choices and we have agency — within constraints. In that sensecwe are free. As St Chomsky said, it is a matter of common sense.

There is no more debate needed. It’s over. Mike, move on please.

[henry quirk]

So, Henry, let me get this straight. You just finished proclaiming that your "free will" is—you—your *physical, meat-and-bones self.

You all see how this temporary aggregate of particles, this transient cluster of electro-chemical reactions, this meat machine, designated Mike, is, yeah?

I covered all *that too, more than once, but the Mike unit has no memory of it. He fixates on the recent response, plucking a single bit from his digitized feed. Me: I'm analog, comprehensive. I remember.