Co-Determinism and the Reality of Free Will

sure Baldeee what ever you say....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Baldeee are you even reading this thread? Or are you responding using a bot from home reacting to email notifications?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

email bot test:
Baldeee, Did you read that I reported you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

interesting read
I found the Barylium Time Anomaly especially entertaining.

 

I see you've given up any pretence of being willing or able to defend your "theory".
And now you think that asking you questions about your theory, that you can't or won't answer, must mean I'm a bot?
It's not a specific deflection tactic I've seen before, but that's all you're doing.
And in the most unobvious of ways.

You telling me here is the first I have heard.
Are people usually informed by the mods or given an automatic notification?
Either way, if you've reported me then you've reported me.
Am I meant to feel scared?
Worried?
Are you expecting me to fall prostrate at your feet and beg forgiveness for questioning your seemingly ill-thought theory, your lack of ability/willing to address criticism, and your fundamentally pathetic manner on this forum?

 

Sure Baldeee what ever you say....

 

I thought the analogy of the farming man pushing against the flow of the deterministic river was quite apt.... shall think of a few more and post later...

We have a slow moving shallow stream that a farming man is wading in.
The water passing through the man's legs can only do what it does according to determining laws of physics that govern the flow of water.
The water has no choice to consider, is is entirely passive to it's pre determinations.
The water has no will or ability to determine itself.

Pre- Summary:

• River water is entirely passive to any determining factors.
• River water can only react and not act.
• River water is entirely predetermined by determining factors, such as gravity, temperature, slope of land, quantity, source, etc...

The farming man though, standing in the middle of this passively flowing stream of water thinks for a while and then proceeds to walk up stream, against the flow of the water.
He is proactively and deliberately by choice, moving against the flow of the streams predetermination.
Not only is he standing, defying gravity, he is also walking against the determination of the water.
He had chosen to defy the universes determination and co-determine the streams water flow as it is disturbed past his legs.

He eventually comes to where he PLANNED ( predetermined himself) to be and started to build a dam to block the flow of water.

He builds his dam and completely blocks the flow of the water to provide irrigation for his crops.

Pre summary:

• The man is using his will to be proactive in determining how he responds to other wise determining factors.
• The man is both reacting and acting.
• The man is both determined by external determining factors, and self determined by his own learned abilities such as being able to stand against gravity and walk in the stream and build his dam to irrigate his crops.

Summary:

• The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of human freewill is false.
• The use of a river flow to use as an example or analogy of passive universal determinism is true.

Combined:

• We can clearly demonstrate Co-determination.

==========

The farming man gets home at the end of the day and thinks to himself how the day went as he predetermined it to be in an act of co-determination.

• The course of the stream has been permanently changed
• The man's crops get irrigated.

Co-determination.​

 

So you post this once, to which I go to some length to address the flaws I perceive in it, which you don't address but instead offer three questions about "defying gravity", then follow that up by reporting me.
I then actually provide a response to the questions you have asked, which you ignore (as well as continuing to ignore the initial criticisms I have posted), then accuse me of being a bot, and then remind me that you have reported me.

And then you post the initial turgid mess all over again.

Am I missing anything from the last 14 posts?

 

yep.... and yet again nope

Still waiting to see how a cog in a machine can defy gravity....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is the most important flaw you see in it?

 

It's difficult to say because it's so poorly articulated and muddled, and without the necessary understanding of the philosophical notions you're invoking.
Correct those things and at least I'll have a better idea of what you're on about, if my initial assessment is wrong.

 

So there is not a single flaw that you can articulate?

 

What philosophical notions am I supposedly invoking?

 

They were adequately detailed in the post you pretty much ignored (#56), three before you claimed to have reported me (how's that going btw?).

Determinism.
Predetermination.
Logic.
Etc.

 

hee hee... don't worry I know exactly what's going on...
You just gotta ask yourself ... why is he continuing to play the game you have got going....?

 

hee hee..
I asked:

and you can not say which.
You're a smart man Baldeee I am sure you are capable of posting about the most important flaw you feel you have found....

I'm quite prepared to discuss it ...you never know we might together improve on it....

 

Baldeee,
In fact it is tempting to prove exactly what is going on...
one thing I could do is post a new thread about unfalsifiability and how the hypothesis of determinism with it's claims about free will, fits the bill perfectly and why it isn't a theory at all...
Might include some quotes found in the current threads...hmmmmm

Would you be interested in participating... would be fun....and educational too....

 

When a three-legged stool has three broken legs, which is most important to fix?
I have responded to your question in post #71.

Only for you.
The argument isn't whether the universe is deterministic or not.
Determinism is assumed, even by you in this thread.
It is a metaphysical assumption on which the logic then rests.
If one considers the logic valid then the conclusion is as true as you hold the assumptions to be.
But we are starting from the assumption of a deterministic universe, even in this thread started by you.
You can't have your arguments based on this assumption criticised and then turn round and simply say "yeah, well determinism is unfalsifiable!" as if that negates the criticism of your argument.
It doesn't.

 

Lol... you don't even know what you are criticising.

 

Do you know what "malicious leading questions" are?