Philosophy Now Forum

A rock is not free. An erupting volcano is not free. A gust of wind is not free. A torrent of rain is not free. A bolt of lightning is not free. Why? Because Natural entities and events, non-living things, are...not living. They are not biological. Thus these phenomena are "Ruled By Natural Laws and Physical Forces": Gravity, Pressure, Electricity, Chemical Reactions, Etc. A rock has no volition. A rock has no autonomy. A rock has no self-locomotion, self-identity, or self-consciousness.

These things have 'Zero' freedom.

Simple cell organisms have a little bit of freedom. A tree sapling has a little bit of freedom. An ant, grasshopper, beetle, or moth has a little bit of freedom. A goldfish has a little bit of freedom. A frog has a little bit of freedom. It is only in Biology, Life, that the phenomenon of "freedom" can first appear. Freedom is relative to every particular species' bodies, behaviors, and attributes. Plant life has very little "freedom", but it does have a semblance of it. Simple-cell organisms also have a little semblance of "freedom". But it is not until complex organisms evolve, and demonstrate complex forms of self-control and movement, that the phenomenon of freedom is first Recognized.

Simple organisms, with little to no intelligence, have 'A Few' units of freedom.


Then as organisms evolve, so too do their capacities for thought, emotion, planning, and every other neural operation. Avian, Reptile, Mammal, Etc. Animals begin to show and express Intellect through their brain organs, neural networks, nervous systems, and the like. Intelligence is rooted in the 'brain' organ, centralized there, in "the mind". Intelligent animals begin to express behaviors that simple, non-intelligent animals cannot. This results in the obvious Predator-Prey relationship, where Predators tend to outsmart their Prey, resulting in death and consumption of Prey animals. Predators and Predation are very strong evolutionary "pressures and forces", which lead to larger and more sophisticated nervous systems, and thus Higher Intelligence.

These factors only become more Exponential in size and scope, in the Hominid Species. Monkeys, Apes, Gorillas, and then, Humanity. Within Humanity, people generally recognize "freedom" as a derivative of intelligence, which it is. The smarter and more intelligent an organism is, the more 'freedom' he or she is presumed to have. Because intelligence opens up new and greater frameworks of choices/causes that lower intelligences do not have access to. Greater intelligence leads to Greater imagination: more choice, more freedom, and greater understandings and awareness of Causality (Knowledge/Epistemology).

Knowledge is Power. If Freedom arises and originates from Knowledge and Intellect, then Freedom is also Power. As Intelligence / Knowledge / Evolution "progresses", so too do the corresponding Choices and Awareness of Causality / Existence. This "Awareness of Causality" (Epistemology) is the big problem for Determinists and Determinism, who presume within their premises, that there is some finite notion of Causality, which "Precede" all Events and Entities. Thus, applied to the phenomenon of Choice (Derivative of Intelligence and Freedom), Determinists claim that any and all Human Choice must be 'Caused' by some combination of 'prior' Causes. However there is a great logical fallacy at play in this rationalization: Infinite Regress. The Determinist claim is always a matter of infinite regression of prior causes. Therefore the Determinist Argument is never provable, therefore never empirical, and therefore never scientific. Determinism relies as much on "Religious Faith" as does their accusations of "Free-Will" against their Religious opponents.

I'm not going to get much into the definition of 'Will' here, except for a few minor details. Willpower is Organic, from Organisms, therefore purely Biological. Non-Living entities, Nature, do not have a "Will". Only organisms have Will. Thus, only Organisms have 'Free-Will', directly relative to their Freedom / Power / Knowledge.

(This thread is mostly aimed @BigMike, but all else are welcome to enter and debate here.)

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am A rock is not free. An erupting volcano is not free. A gust of wind is not free. A torrent of rain is not free. A bolt of lightning is not free. Why? Because Natural entities and events, non-living things, are...not living. They are not biological. Thus these phenomena are "Ruled By Natural Laws and Physical Forces": Gravity, Pressure, Electricity, Chemical Reactions, Etc. A rock has no volition. A rock has no autonomy. A rock has no self-locomotion, self-identity, or self-consciousness.

These things have 'Zero' freedom.

Simple cell organisms have a little bit of freedom. A tree sapling has a little bit of freedom. An ant, grasshopper, beetle, or moth has a little bit of freedom. A goldfish has a little bit of freedom. A frog has a little bit of freedom. It is only in Biology, Life, that the phenomenon of "freedom" can first appear. Freedom is relative to every particular species' bodies, behaviors, and attributes. Plant life has very little "freedom", but it does have a semblance of it. Simple-cell organisms also have a little semblance of "freedom". But it is not until complex organisms evolve, and demonstrate complex forms of self-control and movement, that the phenomenon of freedom is first Recognized.

Simple organisms, with little to no intelligence, have 'A Few' units of freedom.


Then as organisms evolve, so too do their capacities for thought, emotion, planning, and every other neural operation. Avian, Reptile, Mammal, Etc. Animals begin to show and express Intellect through their brain organs, neural networks, nervous systems, and the like. Intelligence is rooted in the 'brain' organ, centralized there, in "the mind". Intelligent animals begin to express behaviors that simple, non-intelligent animals cannot. This results in the obvious Predator-Prey relationship, where Predators tend to outsmart their Prey, resulting in death and consumption of Prey animals. Predators and Predation are very strong evolutionary "pressures and forces", which lead to larger and more sophisticated nervous systems, and thus Higher Intelligence.

These factors only become more Exponential in size and scope, in the Hominid Species. Monkeys, Apes, Gorillas, and then, Humanity. Within Humanity, people generally recognize "freedom" as a derivative of intelligence, which it is. The smarter and more intelligent an organism is, the more 'freedom' he or she is presumed to have. Because intelligence opens up new and greater frameworks of choices/causes that lower intelligences do not have access to. Greater intelligence leads to Greater imagination: more choice, more freedom, and greater understandings and awareness of Causality (Knowledge/Epistemology).

Knowledge is Power. If Freedom arises and originates from Knowledge and Intellect, then Freedom is also Power. As Intelligence / Knowledge / Evolution "progresses", so too do the corresponding Choices and Awareness of Causality / Existence. This "Awareness of Causality" (Epistemology) is the big problem for Determinists and Determinism, who presume within their premises, that there is some finite notion of Causality, which "Precede" all Events and Entities. Thus, applied to the phenomenon of Choice (Derivative of Intelligence and Freedom), Determinists claim that any and all Human Choice must be 'Caused' by some combination of 'prior' Causes. However there is a great logical fallacy at play in this rationalization: Infinite Regress. The Determinist claim is always a matter of infinite regression of prior causes. Therefore the Determinist Argument is never provable, therefore never empirical, and therefore never scientific. Determinism relies as much on "Religious Faith" as does their accusations of "Free-Will" against their Religious opponents.

I'm not going to get much into the definition of 'Will' here, except for a few minor details. Willpower is Organic, from Organisms, therefore purely Biological. Non-Living entities, Nature, do not have a "Will". Only organisms have Will. Thus, only Organisms have 'Free-Will', directly relative to their Freedom / Power / Knowledge.

(This thread is mostly aimed @BigMike, but all else are welcome to enter and debate here.)

.

Think of a movie. Quick don't think about it just think of a movie.

Okay, you didn't think Cujo. Could you have thought Cujo if you wanted? That can't be answered and remains a meaningless hypothetical because we can't rewind the time tape to find out.

So you didn't think Cujo (you thought Risky Business with Cruise), and you couldn't have thought Cujo. But you've seen Cujo, know Cujo, liked Cujo. It's even in your handful of favorites.

Looks to me like you didn't have the freewill pick Cujo.

In your brain, there are little sets of networking neurons, a set for each particular movie you've seen and remember. Now, if that's the case, you shouldn't be unable to pick Cujo and yet you were. I asked you to freely pick a movie. Check. You've seen Cujo. Check. You have freewill and could choose any movie you've seen. Check. You did not choose Cujo. Check. You were not free to pick Cujo. Check. You do not have freewill.

Discuss.

That's an old Sam Harris exercise btw except I do it better than him.

https://youtu.be/mPjndpp0q2U @ 19:05

Naw actually Sam does that joint better. I forgot how he broke it down like that.

A Harris bomb. A single paragraph plunges all manner of dualists trying to defend freewill by positing an immaterial soul free from physical causality into a terrifying philosophical crisis. My god i never thought of that. Like how did i miss that? What do i do now? Sue for Harrisment? Feel like a fool and never post about freewill again? Just kinda start talking about other stuff like the Austrian school of economics and hope nobody remembers i used to believe in freewill?

"Even if we have souls... even if the human mind were made of this soul stuff that we didn't understand, nothing about my argument would change. The unconscious operations of a soul grant you know more freedom than the unconscious neurophysiology of your brain does."

@ 40:15, start thinking of the ooga booga boy that Maia, Wiz, Fishpie, and A. Lexus Jakobi want to rot in a british prison in solitary confinement because the stupid sonofabitch killed those childrens.

Let it run to about 45:50.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am A rock is not free. An erupting volcano is not free. A gust of wind is not free. A torrent of rain is not free. A bolt of lightning is not free. Why? Because Natural entities and events, non-living things, are...not living.

1. Absolutely EVERY one/thing/entity/event IS 'Natural'. This GOES, and STANDS, WITHOUT QUESTIONING.

2. you ONLY 'see' things as living, or not living, BECAUSE of your OWN VERY NARROWED, and/or CLOSED, PERSPECTIVE OF 'things'. 'This' ALSO IS PROVABLE, and thus GOES, and STANDS, WITHOUT QUESTIONING. (But, OBVIOUSLY, some of you might HAVE TO ASK some QUESTIONS, here, TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND 'this', FULLY.

3. It could be SAID and ARGUED that if 'those things' that you list, above here, were NOT 'free', then 'they' could NOT MOVE. But, ANYWAY, what you 'TRIED TO' 'argue' as 'Why' 'those things' are NOT free is NOT even 'logical', NOR 'rational', AT ALL.

4. AGAIN, your WHOLE ATTEMPT AT 'trying to' ARGUE FOR some thing, here, is BEYOND ABSURDITY and RIDICULOUSNESS.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am They are not biological. Thus these phenomena are "Ruled By Natural Laws and Physical Forces": Gravity, Pressure, Electricity, Chemical Reactions, Etc. A rock has no volition. A rock has no autonomy. A rock has no self-locomotion, self-identity, or self-consciousness.

LAUGHINGLY you SAY and WRITE 'this' as those you human animals are NOT 'ruled by natural laws and physical forces'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am These things have 'Zero' freedom.

YET, here 'they' ALL ARE MOVING, and CHANGING.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Simple cell organisms have a little bit of freedom. A tree sapling has a little bit of freedom. An ant, grasshopper, beetle, or moth has a little bit of freedom. A goldfish has a little bit of freedom. A frog has a little bit of freedom. It is only in Biology, Life, that the phenomenon of "freedom" can first appear.

And;

1. What IS the so-called 'phenomenon of 'freedom', EXACTLY', TO you, "wizard22"?

2. What IS so-called 'freedom', EXACTLY, TO you, "Wizard22"?

(Not that you will EVER ANSWER and CLARIFY. But, AT LEAST, MY ASKING OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, TO you, human beings, here, SHOWS and PROVES that you people, BACK in the days when this was being written, could NOT back up and support A LOT OF your CLAIMS, and even ACCUSATIONS.)

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Freedom is relative to every particular species' bodies, behaviors, and attributes. Plant life has very little "freedom", but it does have a semblance of it. Simple-cell organisms also have a little semblance of "freedom". But it is not until complex organisms evolve, and demonstrate complex forms of self-control and movement, that the phenomenon of freedom is first Recognized.

Well CONSIDERING the Fact that you are NOT SHOWING ANY 'self-control', here, BY SAYING, WRITING, and USING words, here, which you can NOT back up and support WHEN QUESTIONED, and WHEN ASKED TO, does 'this' then MEAN that you have NOT YET 'evolved' ENOUGH, and so to ALSO DO NOT YET HAVE and POSSESS 'freedom', itself?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Simple organisms, with little to no intelligence, have 'A Few' units of freedom.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Then as organisms evolve, so too do their capacities for thought, emotion, planning, and every other neural operation. Avian, Reptile, Mammal, Etc. Animals begin to show and express Intellect through their brain organs, neural networks, nervous systems, and the like. Intelligence is rooted in the 'brain' organ, centralized there, in "the mind".

LOL
LOL
LOL

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Intelligent animals begin to express behaviors that simple, non-intelligent animals cannot.

And, so-called 'non intelligent animals' express 'behaviors', which so-called 'intelligent animals' simply do not and simply CAN NOT.

So, just like 'you' 'I' am ALSO ABLE TO, and FREE TO, EXPRESS 'things' which are just BLATANTLY OBVIOUS, AS WELL.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am This results in the obvious Predator-Prey relationship, where Predators tend to outsmart their Prey, resulting in death and consumption of Prey animals. Predators and Predation are very strong evolutionary "pressures and forces", which lead to larger and more sophisticated nervous systems, and thus Higher Intelligence.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am These factors only become more Exponential in size and scope, in the Hominid Species. Monkeys, Apes, Gorillas, and then, Humanity. Within Humanity, people generally recognize "freedom" as a derivative of intelligence, which it is.

And, BECAUSE and WHEN "wizard22" SAYS some thing 'is', then it MUST BE, okay.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am The smarter and more intelligent an organism is, the more 'freedom' he or she is presumed to have.

BESIDES 'you' who ELSE PRESUMES 'this', here, EXACTLY?

If you allow me to have A GUESS, then I would SAY, 'It is the smarter and more intelligent ones who are the 'other ones' who PRESUME that the so-called 'smarter and more intelligent and organism is, then the more 'freedom' 'that organism' is PRESUMED TO HAVE'. Is this CORRECT?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Because intelligence opens up new and greater frameworks of choices/causes that lower intelligences do not have access to. Greater intelligence leads to Greater imagination: more choice, more freedom, and greater understandings and awareness of Causality (Knowledge/Epistemology).

Knowledge is Power.

HOW, EXACTLY?

And, OVER who and/or what, EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am If Freedom arises and originates from Knowledge and Intellect, then Freedom is also Power.

WHY are you ASKING, 'IF freedom' arises and originates from 'knowledge' and 'intellect' ', for, EXACTLY?

Do you NOT YET KNOW?

Also, WHY do you USE a capital 'F', capital 'K', and capital 'I', here, for, EXACTLY?

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am As Intelligence / Knowledge / Evolution "progresses", so too do the corresponding Choices and Awareness of Causality / Existence. This "Awareness of Causality" (Epistemology) is the big problem for Determinists and Determinism, who presume within their premises, that there is some finite notion of Causality, which "Precede" all Events and Entities. Thus, applied to the phenomenon of Choice (Derivative of Intelligence and Freedom), Determinists claim that any and all Human Choice must be 'Caused' by some combination of 'prior' Causes. However there is a great logical fallacy at play in this rationalization: Infinite Regress.

'This one' IS ABOUT UNKNOWING and DELUSIONAL, here, as about one COULD GET.

But, BELIEVING, ABSOLUTELY, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect things does LEAD TO 'this way' of SEEING, and COMMUNICATING, as 'this one' IS SHOWING and REVEALING, TO 'us', here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am The Determinist claim is always a matter of infinite regression of prior causes.

'This claim' is OBVIOUSLY False AND Wrong.

Yet, you, STILL, go on to argue AGAINST, your OWN MADE UP False and Wrong CLAIM.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Therefore the Determinist Argument is never provable, therefore never empirical, and therefore never scientific. Determinism relies as much on "Religious Faith" as does their accusations of "Free-Will" against their Religious opponents.

'This one', just about, could NOT present MORE SKEWED and DISTORTED CLAIMS, here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am I'm not going to get much into the definition of 'Will' here, except for a few minor details.

LOL you have NOT even BEGAN TO START TO 'get into, AT ALL, the definition of 'free' NOR 'freedom', ANYWAY.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Willpower is Organic, from Organisms, therefore purely Biological.

Are you, PURPOSELY, WANTING TO COME ACROSS AS BEING RIDICULOUS and LUDICROUS.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Non-Living entities, Nature, do not have a "Will".

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that 'it', and some others, are NOT 'Natural', and thus ARE ABOVE, BEYOND, and/or SUPER 'natural'.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am Only organisms have Will. Thus, only Organisms have 'Free-Will',

LOL
LOL
LOL

'Only organisms have 'Will'.
Therefore, only organisms have 'Free-Will'.

Now that 'that' has been, FINALLY, SORTED OUT and RESOLVED, the REST OF you human beings can MOVE ALONG, here.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am directly relative to their Freedom / Power / Knowledge.

LOL

'This one', SERIOUSLY, has about the WORST COMPREHENSION of what the 'ARGUING' word, here, in a philosophy forum, is ACTUALLY MEANING and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

This one PRESENTS SOME OF THE WORST FORMS OF ATTEMPTS AT 'TRYING TO' ARGUE or FIGHT FOR 'a position'.

Just about ALL of what this one has SAID and WRITTEN, here, is just PLAIN ILLOGICAL and/or IRRATIONAL, and this is WITHOUT MENTIONING the Falsehoods, which it MAKES UP, and 'TRIES TO' ARGUE AGAINST.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 18, 2025 9:30 am (This thread is mostly aimed @BigMike, but all else are welcome to enter and debate here.)

Talk about ANOTHER PRIME example of one who, ALREADY, HAD A CONCLUSION, which it ALSO BELIEVED IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, and who THEN 'TRIES' its HARDEST TO FIND words, which it HOPES and/or BELIEVES will somehow back up and support its 'current' BELIEVED POSITION or BELIEVED TRUTH, and then who PLACES 'those words' in A PARTICULAR ORDER, which it BELIEVES HAS DEFENDED its BELIEF, and which HAS ARGUED AGAINST another.

ALSO, 'this one' would HAVE TO SAY and WRITE some thing, which is LOGICAL and/or RATIONAL, FIRST, BEFORE another could LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY DEBATE AGAINST 'it'.

By the way, there IS, AGAIN, absolutely NOTHING AT ALL TO 'debate', here.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing IS/WAS 'determined' BY 'past events', INCLUDING the POSSESSION OF the ABILITY TO CHOOSE that you human beings have, which by another term is JUST what the words 'free will' MEAN and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

AGAIN, ALL-OF-THIS IS REALLY VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pm Think of a movie. Quick don't think about it just think of a movie.

Okay, you didn't think Cujo. Could you have thought Cujo if you wanted? That can't be answered and remains a meaningless hypothetical because we can't rewind the time tape to find out.

So you didn't think Cujo (you thought Risky Business with Cruise), and you couldn't have thought Cujo. But you've seen Cujo, know Cujo, liked Cujo. It's even in your handful of favorites.

Looks to me like you didn't have the freewill pick Cujo.

In your brain, there are little sets of networking neurons, a set for each particular movie you've seen and remember. Now, if that's the case, you shouldn't be unable to pick Cujo and yet you were. I asked you to freely pick a movie. Check. You've seen Cujo. Check. You have freewill and could choose any movie you've seen. Check. You did not choose Cujo. Check. You were not free to pick Cujo. Check. You do not have freewill.

Discuss.

1. you do NOT KNOW if ANY one was thinking 'cujo', or NOT.

2. Just because one MIGHT NOT have thought 'cujo' NEVER MEANS that they could NOT NOR could NOT WANT TO.

3. If one did NOT 'pick' 'cujo' this does NOT RELATE TO NOR MEAN that 'that one' does NOT have 'freewill'.

4. What does the word 'freewill' even MEAN, TO you, EXACTLY?

5. It is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to have A DEFINITION for 'word', which would be IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST, and to then just SAY and CLAIM that 'that word' does NOT EXIST and/or that 'you' do NOT HAVE 'that word'.

So, UNTIL 'you' PROVIDE 'us' WITH 'your' DEFINITION for the 'freewill' word, here, you are just MAKING UP and SAYING 'empty claims', here.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pm That's an old Sam Harris exercise btw except I do it better than him.

But, 'it' is IRRATIONAL, to say the least.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:10 am A Harris bomb. A single paragraph plunges all manner of dualists trying to defend freewill by positing an immaterial soul free from physical causality into a terrifying philosophical crisis. My god i never thought of that. Like how did i miss that? What do i do now? Sue for Harrisment? Feel like a fool and never post about freewill again? Just kinda start talking about other stuff like the Austrian school of economics and hope nobody remembers i used to believe in freewill?

"Even if we have souls...

ONCE MORE, you human beings do NOT have;

Souls'
'Minds'
'Freewills', NOR
MANY OTHER 'things', which some of you BELIEVE you DO.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:10 am even if the human mind were made of this soul stuff that we didn't understand, nothing about my argument would change.

you argument FALTERS and FAILS.

But, you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that your argument DOES NOT, right?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:10 am The unconscious operations of a soul grant you know more freedom than the unconscious neurophysiology of your brain does."

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example if 'this one' was ASKED TO back up and/or CLARIFY the ACTUAL WORDS that it has CHOSEN, FREELY, TO USE, then it would SHOW that it COULD NOT.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 11:48 pm https://youtu.be/mPjndpp0q2U @ 19:05

Naw actually Sam does that joint better. I forgot how he broke it down like that.

"sam harris", here, CLAIMS that they ALL 'picked the wrong city', but then TELLS them, 'Don't ask me how I know this, but I do'.

If one TAKES NOTICE OF 'THE WAY' that it SAID and CLAIMED 'this', and VERY QUICKLY MOVED PAST 'this', then SEEING A 'Truth', which MOST DID NOT EVEN RECOGNIZE and NOTICE, is VERY EASY and VERY SIMPLE DONE. The Truth, here, IS this one does NOT KNOW what it just CLAIMED, and it is EXPECTING you to JUST BELIEVE that it DOES. And, BECAUSE it can NOT back up and support its CLAIM, here, it, literally, TELLS you to NOT ASK it, 'How do you KNOW?'

'This' IS ANOTHER example of one ATTEMPTING TO LIE, and TO DECEIVE. Which was VERY COMMONLY USED AMONG adult human beings, BACK in the day when this was being written, and WHEN DONE in relation to 'selling' some thing, 'these people' were once commonly KNOWN AS 'snake oil salesmen'.

'This one', however, is NOT 'trying to' 'SELL' you some thing, FOR 'money', but IS, STILL, 'TRYING TO' 'SELL" you some thing. 'That thing' BEING its OWN VIEWS, BELIEFS, and/or PRESUMPTIONS. 'This one' WANTS you TO HAVE and TO HOLD the SAME BELIEF that it DOES. And, so in 'the process' it WILL 'TRY TO' 'SELL' you the SAME BELIEF.

"sam harris" ASKS, 'Did you see ANY evidence for 'free will'? My ANSWER IS, a resounding, 'Yes'. (But this is just BECAUSE I ALREADY HAD A DEFINITION FOR the 'free will' words.}

Whereas MOST OF you, STILL, have NO DEFINITION, AT ALL. As you KEEP PROVING me True BY the NUMBER OF TIMES 'I' have ASKED people, here, and NO response is PROVIDE, or SILLIER STILL, A DEFINITION is PROVIDED of some thing that could NOT even POSSIBLY EXIST, theoretically/logically NOR empirically/physically.

Which, OBVIOUSLY, in and of itself is JUST LAUGHABLE. That is; IF one is going to 'TRY TO' DEBATE, and/or 'TRY TO' DEFEND or ARGUE AGAINST, A POSITION.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 06, 2025 1:06 am @ 40:15, start thinking of the ooga booga boy that Maia, Wiz, Fishpie, and A. Lexus Jakobi want to rot in a british prison in solitary confinement because the stupid sonofabitch killed those childrens.

Let it run to about 45:50.

"sam harris" is just ANOTHER VERY SICK and TWISTED adult human being.

And, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one would like to DISCUSS WHY, then let 'us'.

it talks about BELIEVING what it DOES, and then they also could have COMPASSION FOR others, but then SHOWS and REVEALS its OWN HATRED FOR others. 'This one' is just ANOTHER HYPOCRITE who KEEPS CONTRADICTING "itself".

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmThink of a movie. Quick don't think about it just think of a movie.

Gangs of New York

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmOkay, you didn't think Cujo. Could you have thought Cujo if you wanted?

Yes, I "could have", but didn't.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmThat can't be answered and remains a meaningless hypothetical because we can't rewind the time tape to find out.

So you didn't think Cujo (you thought Risky Business with Cruise), and you couldn't have thought Cujo.

I've seen most Cruise movies, but not Risky Business, missed that one. I could have thought Cujo, though.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmBut you've seen Cujo, know Cujo, liked Cujo. It's even in your handful of favorites.

I wouldn't call it a favorite; I saw it when I was a teenager, don't remember much about it, other than it's Stephen King and about the dog.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmLooks to me like you didn't have the freewill pick Cujo.

Consider though, if somebody *DID* in fact pick Cujo, then would your thought-experiment here, fail??

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:28 pmIn your brain, there are little sets of networking neurons, a set for each particular movie you've seen and remember. Now, if that's the case, you shouldn't be unable to pick Cujo and yet you were. I asked you to freely pick a movie. Check. You've seen Cujo. Check. You have freewill and could choose any movie you've seen. Check. You did not choose Cujo. Check. You were not free to pick Cujo. Check. You do not have freewill.

Discuss.

Your argument hinges on what "could" be done, regarding a Choice. As I just mentioned, doesn't anybody picking Cujo, refute your entire argument??

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 05, 2025 11:48 pm https://youtu.be/mPjndpp0q2U @ 19:05

Naw actually Sam does that joint better. I forgot how he broke it down like that.

I'll check it out soon... I disagree with Sam Harris' Hard Determinism though.