AB,
OK, just back from a cheeky 50 miler in the beautiful north-west Essex countryside.
I have read and understood it, which is why I made the reply above.
If you have read and understood it why have you just ignored the arguments that undid you in favour of repeating your original mistakes?
Look, I’ll show you. I’ll put what I said in bold, and then add some comment.
First, you’re relying again on your idiosyncratic and incoherent definition of “freedom” of “free from any constraints, including the constraints of cause and effect”. This is wrong. The conscious “we” have all sorts of freedoms in the sense of countless options available to us, but there’s no need for the substrate of cause and effect not to apply for that to be the case.What you could have done was actually to have engaged with what was said here. You could for example have said, “That’s not what I mean by freedom and here’s why”. Or perhaps, “But I don’t understand how there are types of freedom unless there’s also freedom from cause and effect". Or you could have said pretty much
anything that actually responded to the falsifying argument.
What you actually did though was to repeat your personal definition of “free” as if that somehow dealt with the issue.
It didn’t. There are many types if freedom that are nonetheless bounded or constrained at some level, and our freedom to act within the constraints of cause and effect is just one of them.
Second, “non material” is meaningless – in the sense you’re attempting it of “not bound by cause and effect” then it must be random which, as you now know, would mean chaotic.Again, this is clear enough I’d have thought yet you just ignored it entirely. You casually throw around terms like “non-material”, “spiritual” etc as if they had commonly understood meanings and had objectively been shown to be real when neither of those things are true. It’s the epistemic equivalent of me saying that I know there are leprechauns because of wibble. If you want terms like these to be taken seriously, then you need first to tell us what they mean and second demonstrate them at all.
What you actually do though is just repeat them endlessly in the hope that no-one notices they’re built on sand.
Third, it’s circular: “I think “freedom” means “free from cause and effect”, therefore there must be a free from cause and effect space for it to exist”. It’s also an argumentum ad consequentiam by the way.Again a simple enough point that you just ignored. You’ve decided (erroneously as it happens) that for “free” to be meaningful it must mean “free from cause and effect”. Having done that, you then assert that there must therefore be a “free form cause and effect” space for this version of freedom to exist.
That’s called circular reasoning because the premise assumes the conclusion and it’s yet another logical fallacy, so it fails necessarily.
Have you read and understood my reply?
Yes. Your reply ignored all the arguments that undid you and repeated the mistakes that were undone.
Rather than repeat them yet again, when not finally have a go at tackling the falsifying arguments?
