Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
I can type 01 and I can type 10, I have thereby demonstrated that I can perform both actions.
you experience the sensation of being able to preform both actions
You can see, here on the page, there's an 01 and a 10. Are you really suggesting that I should doubt that I performed the action which resulted in these numbers appearing on this screen???!?
Bacteria can swim left or they can swim right, I have thereby demonstrated that bacteria can perform both actions.
Wonderful.

Applying your demonstration to bacteria shows that it is invalid, since it leads to an obviously faulty conclusion.

ughaibu wrote:

the present status is that free will carries by default.

By default? Free will has to come from somewhere, because it did not use to exist. You have to explain it, it is not the default. By that reasoning the existence of God is the default, since we all used to believe it, and atheists have the burden of proof.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

So what ???

Fair enough, as long as you're aware that you hold a position that's almost definitely false, I guess it's up to you. But I certainly wouldn't call your position rational, and cant imagine what you think is the benefit for you.

@ughaibu,

I am very much aware that my position is challenging at the very least...nevertheless far from proven wrong, and very rational...but I know what you mean...

I am not looking for a direct benefit, but to know further...I am sure you can empathise with that...

PS - Previous post edited, re-check please.

@EmperorNero,

I'm a bit leery of contributing to any of these free will v. determinism threads, since I do not feel that free will provides an adequate account of historical agency. However, I feel compelled to step in here a lob a couple of grenades. If I feel I have anything further to contribute, which will depend upon the nature of the responses, I'll keep writing. If I don't feel that my further contributions will be of interest, I'll shuffle off.

EmperorNero wrote:

By default? Free will has to come from somewhere, because it did not use to exist. You have to explain it, it is not the default. By that reasoning the existence of God is the default, since we all used to believe it, and atheists have the burden of proof.

Actually, you seemed to agree that it was the default position when you stated that:

EmperorNero wrote:

Saying "I have a choice" does not address that, nobody denies that we appear to make choices. (emphasis mine)

Universal consensus seems to be a reasonable sign that the concept of free will is, in fact, the default position. If, to all appearances, free will seems to be a self-evident fact, then it is upon the objector to this fact that the burden of proof lies. Anyone can affect an infinitely regressive argument by refusing to agree to a sufficient warrant in the course of the argument. In other words, arguing against free will using a regressive argument is not an argument for determinism, it is merely argument for it's own sake. And quite willful of you, I'm sure.

EmperorNero wrote:

By that reasoning the existence of God is the default, since we all used to believe it, and atheists have the burden of proof.

I don't know why I always feel compelled to pick on your religious metaphors, EN, but I'm afraid that I am about to do it again. Why shouldn't the atheist be responsible for the burden of proof, and how does the atheist go about it? Well, back when establishing atheism as a rational position was vital, they did so by analyzing circumstances that had formerly been considered to originate from supernatural causes and showing how they were the result of natural causes. Some supporters of determinism do try to use similar scientific arguments against free will, but their success is limited because there exists a theoretical blind-spot in the assumed continuity between posited determinative factors and the event. (Just as there remains a similar theoretical gap between theists and atheists, although it is the theistic position which tends to employ regressive arguments in that particular debate.)

The free will v. determinism debate is less like the argument between atheists and theists, than it is between two theists of different religions. Both arguments appeal to transcendental concepts that are difficult to apply critically to particular events, and they both have access to a variety of research (none of which could be considered conclusive.)

@ Fil Albuquerque

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...Have you read anything on true homozigotic twins behavioural similarities ?

I'm working on the assumption that you mean monozygotic twins, since we are probably all homo zygotic whether we are twins or not. Twin studies are kind of controversial stuff, as establishing anything like a control group is pretty impossible. Regardless, those studies are set up to detect whether certain traits are of genetic origin or the result of environmental conditioning. They are not studies that provide any information regarding human agency.

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Actually, you seemed to agree that it was the default position when you stated that:
EmperorNero wrote:
Saying "I have a choice" does not address that, nobody denies that we appear to make choices. (emphasis mine)

By stating "nobody denies that we appear to make choices", I do not agree that free will is the default position. If I agreed that making choices confirms free will, I would already agree with free will, wouldn't I?
Nobody denies that we make choices. The question is whether we could have picked the other choice out of internal variability, or whether your choice was the only reaction to the stimuli you were confronted with. When you place a stone on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side, i.e. it chooses. But it does not have free will.

Razzleg wrote:

Universal consensus seems to be a reasonable sign that the concept of free will is, in fact, the default position. If, to all appearances, free will seems to be a self-evident fact...

No, it's not. Science is shipping away at the notion of free will. There's no "consensus" for free will and if there was what would it matter? More people believing it does not philosophically make it the default position. Then science becomes one big opinion poll.

Stones don't have free will, bacteria don't have free will, mice don't have free will, squirrels don't have free will, dogs don't have free will, deer don't have free will... if you believe that humans do have free will then you have to explain how it happened, where it came from. It is not the default position that has to be disproven. Just biologically, how does free work? I have heard no explanation of that so far, just the usual argument "I make choices, so it is up to you to prove that I don't have free will".

Razzleg wrote:

Anyone can affect an infinitely regressive argument by refusing to agree to a sufficient warrant in the course of the argument.

You could have said that in a lot simpler way. You are not actually smarter because you use unnecessarily complicated wording. What is a regressive argument? The term does not even show up on google, so that's just a semi-obscure term you use to sound mysterious.

Razzleg wrote:

In other words, arguing against free will using a regressive argument is not an argument for determinism, it is merely argument for it's own sake.

Yes. I'm not really arguing for determinism. Determinism can be the case, but my argument does not require it.

Why does arguing for skepticism have a lower status these days? It is for some reason now considered less enlightened to argue against the existence of something than it is to assume it's existence out of thin air as the default position. I suppose that intellectual climate was created when scientific discourse was redefined in order to make global warming plausible. E.g. skepticism is not a scientific virtue any more and does by default lack credibility and believability.
Just goes to show you how scientific conventions aren't objective and timeless, but are adjusted to suit the intellectual crusade of the day.

Razzleg wrote:

I don't know why I always feel compelled to pick on your religious metaphors, EN, but I'm afraid that I am about to do it again. Why shouldn't the atheist be responsible for the burden of proof, and how does the atheist go about it?

Why would the opposition be responsible for disproving that unicorns and santa clause exist? Because it is hard to prove a negative, so you can easily make any assertion plausible by assuming it out of thin air and expecting for someone to disprove it.

Razzleg wrote:

Well, back when establishing atheism as a rational position was vital, they did so by analyzing circumstances that had formerly been considered to originate from supernatural causes and showing how they were the result of natural causes. Some supporters of determinism do try to use similar scientific arguments against free will, but their success is limited because there exists a theoretical blind-spot in the assumed continuity between posited determinative factors and the event.

Could you rephrase that last part in somewhat less complicated wording?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Stones don't have free will, bacteria don't have free will

If stones and bacteria aren't conscious and dont make conscious choices, then they can not be substituted into my demonstration. If stones and bacteria are conscious and make conscious decisions, then they have free will. Your objection fails because you switch from them being conscious, etc, in the substitution, to them not being conscious to establish a reductio. But the contradiction is in your incompatible premises.

EmperorNero wrote:

mice don't have free will, squirrels don't have free will, dogs don't have free will, deer don't have free will

I dont see any reason to accept this, have you got one?

EmperorNero wrote:

if you believe that humans do have free will then you have to explain how it happened, where it came from.

Rubbish. Facts precede explanations, it is not the case that explanations precede facts, obviously not. Can you explain how matter, in the case of human beings, comes to be conscious? If not, in order to be consistent, you'll need to deny the reality of consciousness. Good luck with your credibility on that one.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

If stones and bacteria aren't conscious and dont make conscious choices, then they can not be substituted into my demonstration.

Correct. That's what I wanted you to admit. Now, if humans don't make conscious choices, then they can not be substituted into your demonstration either. Humans are conscious, that is pretty generally accepted, and humans make decisions, you have demonstrated that, but that does not demonstrate that they can make conscious decisions. You have to demonstrate that humans can make conscious decisions to demonstrate free will.

ughaibu wrote:

Can you explain how matter, in the case of human beings, comes to be conscious? If not, in order to be consistent, you'll need to deny the reality of consciousness.

I don't have to deny the reality of consciousness, just that humans make conscious decisions, which I hereby do. You have to demonstrate that they do.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

if humans don't make conscious choices, then they can not be substituted into your demonstration either. Humans are conscious, that is pretty generally accepted, and humans make decisions, you have demonstrated that, but that does not demonstrate that they can make conscious decisions. You have to demonstrate that humans can make conscious decisions to demonstrate free will.

That the decision was a conscious decision was included in the demonstration. If you have an argument against this, you need to produce it.

EmperorNero wrote:

I don't have to deny the reality of consciousness

On the contrary, if you demand an explanation of free will, then in order to be consistent you must deny all unexplained facts: abiogenesis, that you're who you are, the existence of the world, values of physical constants, etc, etc, etc.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
if humans don't make conscious choices, then they can not be substituted into your demonstration either. Humans are conscious, that is pretty generally accepted, and humans make decisions, you have demonstrated that, but that does not demonstrate that they can make conscious decisions. You have to demonstrate that humans can make conscious decisions to demonstrate free will.
That the decision was a conscious decision was included in the demonstration.

No it was not included in the demonstration. What was in your demonstration was not that the decision was a conscious decision, just that it was a decision and that humans are conscious. That does not combine into being a conscious decision.

EmperorNero wrote:

I don't have to deny the reality of consciousness

On the contrary, if you demand an explanation of free will, then in order to be consistent you must deny all unexplained facts: abiogenesis, that you're who you are, the existence of the world, values of physical constants, etc, etc, etc.[/quote]

I only have to deny the ability to make conscious decisions, consciousness can exist just fine.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

No it was not included in the demonstration.

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
I have consciously considered the consequences of my choice.
{01}
I have constructed a set with exactly one element, which is a proper subset of my option set.

Do you have an argument?

EmperorNero wrote:

I only have to deny the ability to make conscious decisions, consciousness can exist just fine.

If you demand, as part of your justification for denial, that free will needs to be explained, then that equally applies to all things which are unexplained. This special pleading in denial of free will is quite common, it is a fallacy of reasoning and it raises suspicions about your motives for denial. If you are not denying the reality of free will as a consequence of a consistent approach to observables, why are you denying it?

@ughaibu,

Will U be so Free to be more Determined in your points of view ?

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

By stating "nobody denies that we appear to make choices", I do not agree that free will is the default position.

By "default" I meant:

Noun 1. default: an option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified

I did not say it was the correct position. If the event of choice is self-evident, and free will is equated with choice, then free-will would seem to be the default position.

EmperorNero wrote:

The question is whether we could have picked the other choice out of internal variability, or whether your choice was the only reaction to the stimuli you were confronted with. When you place a stone on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side, i.e. it chooses. But it does not have free will.

The problem is that "free will" cannot be demonstrated in a single demonstration of choice. It requires the presentation of the same choice to the same subject multiple times, and the collection of data and evidence as to whether the means of decision-making develops. Undoubtedly, the changes in decision-making procedure or priorities will be based on, in part, the consequences of the previous choice, but not simply in reaction to stimuli. A stone always rolls downhill, not up, a person may choose skip or they may choose to run. The single event of skipping or running is not evidence of free will, but given similar conditions, the variation in behavior might be said to support an argument for it.

EmperorNero wrote:

You could have said that in a lot simpler way. You are not actually smarter because you use unnecessarily complicated wording. What is a regressive argument? The term does not even show up on google, so that's just a semi-obscure term you use to sound mysterious.

I do have a bad habit of using unnecessarily complicated wording. It doesn't arise from an attempt to be mysterious, though. I tend to be wordy, and it is an attempt to qualify and condense what I am trying to say in as little space as possible. I'm sure my posts still seem too long to most readers.

"Infinite regress" is probably the term to google. Here is a link to the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

EmperorNero wrote:

Yes. I'm not really arguing for determinism. Determinism can be the case, but my argument does not require it.

Why does arguing for skepticism have a lower status these days? It is for some reason now considered less enlightened to argue against the existence of something than it is to assume it's existence out of thin air as the default position.

Skepticism isn't an argument, per se. It is barely a position. It might be better called a technique, employed to establish a new position. Otherwise, see the wiki article above. Science employs skepticism to establish the terms of a debate. If all science did was employ skepticism, it would simply be an anti-religion. I think that science is something other than that; it establishes claims based on a method.

EmperorNero wrote:

Why would the opposition be responsible for disproving that unicorns and santa clause exist? Because it is hard to prove a negative, so you can easily make any assertion plausible by assuming it out of thin air and expecting for someone to disprove it.

Scientists did not disprove the existence of either unicorns or Santa (and what are you implying about St Nick?), and if they can be said to have done so it was certainly not by logical argument. They proceeded to demonstrate their arguments through observation and experiment, and by doing so they made the existence of unicorns a highly tenuous assertion.

EmperorNero wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
Well, back when establishing atheism as a rational position was vital, they did so by analyzing circumstances that had formerly been considered to originate from supernatural causes and showing how they were the result of natural causes. Some supporters of determinism do try to use similar scientific arguments against free will, but their success is limited because there exists a theoretical blind-spot in the assumed continuity between posited determinative factors and the event.

Could you rephrase that last part in somewhat less complicated wording?

Through observation and experiment atheists established their natural explanations for events as superior to supernatural explanations due to their repeatability and their applicability for technological development. However, people of faith can defend their perspective by teleological arguments, etc. That is, they can defend it by recourse to arguments that cannot be challenged by physical evidence. Modern scientists may be chipping away at the classical arguments for free will, but no experiment has been designed that can disprove certain phenomenon, like the learning curve, that tend to be used as support in the arguments favoring or upholding a theory of free will. Experiments like the twin studies that Fil Albuquerque suggested are not conclusive.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

I have consciously considered the consequences of my choice.

Can you tell me what's the difference between the sentence "I have consciously considered my choice" and "I have free will"? Because it seems like they mean exactly the same, just expressed in different ways. If so, you demonstrate what you want to demonstrate by just stating it in another way. That's just begging the question.

ughaibu wrote:

If you demand (...) that free will needs to be explained, then that equally applies to all things which are unexplained

What? I have to be against the war in Iraq to be against the war in Afghanistan? I have to explain how matter comes to be conscious to "deny" free will? What you are saying here is "you have to deny it all, or it is all true".
You have to explain how matter comes to have free will, I have to explain nothing. I don't make a positive statement.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Can you tell me what the difference between the sentence "I have consciously considered (the consequences of) my choice" and "I have free will" is?

There's no resemblance. When one makes a conscious choice, one rehearses expected consequences of each member of the option set, one is consciously aware of doing this and of the results. One then constructs the choice set, mentally, before enacting it. Surely you've made a conscious choice sometime?

EmperorNero wrote:

Sure, but I don't make a positive claim here. I don't have to explain anything.

Here's a positive claim:

EmperorNero wrote:

consciousness can exist just fine.

explain how consciousness comes about or be inconsistent.
Anyway, I'm pretty bored of this, you haven't given me anything resembling a reason to doubt my demonstration. What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?

I'm a scientist, I don't believe in stuff unless it's shown to exist.

ughaibu wrote:

When one makes a conscious choice, one rehearses expected consequences of each member of the option set, one is consciously aware of doing this and of the results. One then constructs the choice set, mentally, before enacting it. Surely you've made a conscious choice sometime?

That's a pretty mundane fact. Free will is something different. We all know we make conscious choices, denying that would imply that we are unthinking zombies. I'm not saying that. Free will means that your choices are not a causally determined sequence of reactions; matter that just reacts to the stimuli it was confronted with. I don't see how saying "I make conscious choices" does address that.
But anyways, If we simply disagree about the meaning of free will, this can go on forever, so unless you have a rebuttal, thanks for the chat.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?

I'm a scientist, I don't believe in stuff unless it's shown to exist.

Fair enough. Do you deny the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Do you deny that the speed of light is constant for all inertial reference frames? Do you deny the process of abiogenesis?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?

I'm a scientist, I don't believe in stuff unless it's shown to exist.
Fair enough. Do you deny the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Do you deny that the speed of light is constant for all inertial reference frames? Do you deny the process of abiogenesis?

As I said, I don't have to be against the war in Iraq to be against the war in Afghanistan. I don't have to agree with polygamy because I agree with gay marriage. It's not all or nothing. Are you suggesting that not denying the existence of dark energy forces me to accept free will? They are completely unrelated. Maybe it would be philosophically inconstant, but nothing more.

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
By stating "nobody denies that we appear to make choices", I do not agree that free will is the default position.

By "default" I meant:

Noun 1. default: an option that is selected automatically unless an alternative is specified

I did not say it was the correct position. If the event of choice is self-evident, and free will is equated with choice, then free-will would seem to be the default position.

Yeah, I understood 'default' in that meaning.
But free will is not choice. Free will means that your choices are not a causally determined sequence of reactions; matter that just reacts to the stimuli it was confronted with. For your purposes, you make choices all right, just that a strong enough computer could have calculated it, there's no room for variability. If it exists, it has to be explained how dead matter formed variability.

EmperorNero wrote:

The question is whether we could have picked the other choice out of internal variability, or whether your choice was the only reaction to the stimuli you were confronted with. When you place a stone on the top of a hill, it rolls down one or the other side, i.e. it chooses. But it does not have free will.

The problem is that "free will" cannot be demonstrated in a single demonstration of choice. It requires the presentation of the same choice to the same subject multiple times,[/quote]

Pretty much, yeah. You can't make "the same" choice twice. So it is impossible to prove free will.

EmperorNero wrote:

You could have said that in a lot simpler way. You are not actually smarter because you use unnecessarily complicated wording. What is a regressive argument? The term does not even show up on google, so that's just a semi-obscure term you use to sound mysterious.

I do have a bad habit of using unnecessarily complicated wording. It doesn't arise from an attempt to be mysterious, though. I tend to be wordy, and it is an attempt to qualify and condense what I am trying to say in as little space as possible. I'm sure my posts still seem too long to most readers.

"Infinite regress" is probably the term to google. Here is a link to the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress[/quote]

Well, it's achieving the opposite. It makes your posts longer and harder to read. And your thoughts are much harder to grasp because the reader has to struggle through the semantics.

EmperorNero wrote:

Yes. I'm not really arguing for determinism. Determinism can be the case, but my argument does not require it.

Why does arguing for skepticism have a lower status these days? It is for some reason now considered less enlightened to argue against the existence of something than it is to assume it's existence out of thin air as the default position.

Skepticism isn't an argument, per se. It is barely a position. It might be better called a technique, employed to establish a new position. Otherwise, see the wiki article above. Science employs skepticism to establish the terms of a debate. If all science did was employ skepticism, it would simply be an anti-religion. I think that science is something other than that; it establishes claims based on a method.

EmperorNero wrote:

Why would the opposition be responsible for disproving that unicorns and santa clause exist? Because it is hard to prove a negative, so you can easily make any assertion plausible by assuming it out of thin air and expecting for someone to disprove it.

Scientists did not disprove the existence of either unicorns or Santa (and what are you implying about St Nick?), and if they can be said to have done so it was certainly not by logical argument. They proceeded to demonstrate their arguments through observation and experiment, and by doing so they made the existence of unicorns a highly tenuous assertion.[/quote]

The point is that "x exists" has the burden of proof against "no it doesn't", the latter should never have the burden of proof. Which is what the free will crowd is doing.

EmperorNero wrote:

Razzleg wrote:
Well, back when establishing atheism as a rational position was vital, they did so by analyzing circumstances that had formerly been considered to originate from supernatural causes and showing how they were the result of natural causes. Some supporters of determinism do try to use similar scientific arguments against free will, but their success is limited because there exists a theoretical blind-spot in the assumed continuity between posited determinative factors and the event.

Could you rephrase that last part in somewhat less complicated wording?

Razzleg wrote:

Through observation and experiment atheists established their natural explanations for events as superior to supernatural explanations due to their repeatability and their applicability for technological development.

I was not atheists that explained that lightning is a discharge of electricity so people no longer had to explain it as coming from the gods. It was progress figuring out that lightning is a discharge of electricity that made atheism plausible. So the causation is the other way around.
Philosophically atheism is the default position, it does not have to make arguments.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

For your purposes, you make choices all right, just that a strong enough computer could have calculated it, there's no room for variability. If it exists, it has to be explained how dead matter formed variability.

I believe that you are confusing my argument and ughaibu's. Before I can address the rest of your comment, could you please explain the concept of "dead matter" and how it relates to the debate at hand?

EmperorNero wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

The problem is that "free will" cannot be demonstrated in a single demonstration of choice. It requires the presentation of the same choice to the same subject multiple times,and the collection of data and evidence as to whether the means of decision-making develops. Undoubtedly, the changes in decision-making procedure or priorities will be based on, in part, the consequences of the previous choice, but not simply in reaction to stimuli. A stone always rolls downhill, not up, a person may choose skip or they may choose to run. The single event of skipping or running is not evidence of free will, but given similar conditions, the variation in behavior might be said to support an argument for it.

Pretty much, yeah. You can't make "the same" choice twice. So it is impossible to prove free will.

You pretend to represent a scientific viewpoint, but you don't believe that conditions can be controlled sufficiently to make experiments? I'm not sure what you were doing when you placed "the same" in quotation marks, but I'm pretty sure that conditions can be controlled enough to apply "the same" stimuli to "the same" subject repeatedly, collate data, and observe a learning curve. If "you can't make "the same" choice twice", then what are your objections to the theory of free will? If a subject reacts differently each time similar stimuli are applied to it, this phenomenon seems to support the idea that some sort of "internal variability" (whatever you'd like to make of that) could be at work.

EmperorNero wrote:

Well, it's achieving the opposite. It makes your posts longer and harder to read. And your thoughts are much harder to grasp because the reader has to struggle through the semantics.

Sorry to hear that, but I'd imagine that my syntax is much more challenging. Hope the wiki link helped.

EmperorNero wrote:

The point is that "x exists" has the burden of proof against "no it doesn't", the latter should never have the burden of proof. Which is what the free will crowd is doing.

Hmmm...perhaps, in some cases, I'd agree with you. My point, is that skepticism alone provides no basis for argument. If someone were to continue to provide arguments, and you were unwilling to accept any premises, then no proof exists. I'm not sure what proponents of "free will" you've been arguing with besides ughaibu, but they have not failed to provide arguments. You are making a sort-of logical argument against scientific data. If you do not allow any of the empirical premises to stand, how is the argument to progress?

EmperorNero wrote:

I was not atheists that explained that lightning is a discharge of electricity so people no longer had to explain it as coming from the gods. It was progress figuring out that lightning is a discharge of electricity that made atheism plausible. So the causation is the other way around.
Philosophically atheism is the default position, it does not have to make arguments.

On the contrary, atheism preceded modern scientific methods, science did give it a fresh spin though. And you're right, many scientific discoveries and explanations were first presented by people of a religious nature, which when popularized helped to shake the faith of some people. On the other hand, progress is an abstract, "progress" does nothing. And there is no causal relationship between atheism and the scientific method, one way or the other, although there is a strong correlation.

In my earlier references to atheism's use of scientific explanations, I was talking about the early days of science in the West. Within that historical context, the religious view was the default position, and the onus lay on atheist to make the arguments. The default position is a conservative concept, whatever opinion happens to represent the quantitative or power majority tends to occupy it.

@Razzleg,

My apologies it was a obvious Freudian "acte manqué" (failed act) once I was referring to the same egg...Monozygotic against Dizygotic or fraternal twins...and yes it can clearly show how many of our so called free actions are far from free...Science is indeed, in many fields now, shipping away from free will standard point of view...

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know