Gabriella,
Nope. Reply 27006 actually reads:
You:
“What equivalence?”
Me:
“This one:
“AB's position in #26936 was that the soul's choice or will is not random and was influenced by environment/nature/nurture but not defined by them. AB seems to have made a distinction between choices being "influenced" and being "defined". But it puts him in the position of not knowing the detail of how choices are made, same as the rest of us.” (emphasis added)”
You:
“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages. If there is nothing for you to consider, that's fine.”
Me:
“That’s a non sequitur. That the same arguments that undo AB have been posted many times and he’s ignored them many times does not imply that his conjecture “soul” therefore offers something to consider for the reason I explained: it’s incoherent.”
See? The “line before” (that you wrote remember?) concerns precisely “the soul's choice or will” so the whole issue was about this supposed “soul” and so wasn’t irrelevant at all.
I’m sorry this has backfired so spectacularly for you, but don’t blame the messenger here.
Except it hasn't. The line before was about AB's distinction between choices being influenced as opposed to defined. I’m sorry this has backfired so spectacularly for you, but don’t blame the messenger here.
Why have you just lied about that when I clearly said precisely the opposite – ie, that the incoherence or white noise of "soul" offers nothing to consider?
I haven't lied about what you said. As usual you misunderstood what I said. AB introducing a soul, which is separate from the brain, and using it to argue for the concept of free will (which is why he needed a soul separate from the brain) offers a lot to consider about free-will and a ghost in the system.
Asking for evidence of AB's concept has led to a lot of interesting discussion. Your idea about choosing or not where the arguments take you and your belief that people choose their beliefs could also lead to interesting discussions if you were asked to provide evidence for your belief.
Oh dear. You can choose or not to accept where the arguments take you. Beliefs come later.
If you want people to consider your idea in more detail, I suggest starting another thread as a lot of posters seem busy engaging with and asking for evidence for Alan's concept of a soul giving humans free-will.
That’s a mix of ground shifting and untruth. The ground shifting is steering us away from AB's “soul” into the general subject of decision making. The untruth is that the “running on for so many pages” has anything to do with considering and analysing AB’s “concept of a soul and free will”. AB’s “concept” was falsified very quickly – the number of pages involved since is just a function of his obduracy in refusing to address the falsifications. Suggesting that it’s connected with potential legitimacy of his conjectures is just wrong.
Except it does – as usual. One example of white noise is equivalent to another example of white noise. That’s the point of the analogy. No-one is “having an interesting time arguing about why people think AB's concept of a soul is incoherent because his concept of a soul relates to the ideas of free will and choice” – that ship sailed almost immediately he launched it. The length of correspondence since is mostly repetition in the face of his granite-faced obduracy and misunderstanding.
Are you suggesting posters are bored posting on here or bored reading posts about free-will but continue to post and read? I find the posts interesting so you're clearly wrong about "no-one" having an interesting time.
I don’t “portray” myself as any such thing – what I actually do is portray logic as epistemically superior to bad arguments and assertions of faith.
Ah well. I tried.
OIC. Are you saying you're damaged too and therefore deserving of a lot more sympathy. I thought you were trying to portray yourself as too superior to be damaged, but if I got that wrong then you have my apologies. And my sympathy.
