Surely it is time that all the freedom deniers on this thread come to terms with the fact that their continued, consciously driven efforts to think up reasons to justify this non belief in their own freedom actually confirms the reality of it.
Surely it's time you looked at the evidence and drew conclusions from it rather than presupposing something that fits your chosen legend?
We have Gordon choosing to use his consciously concocted term "theobollocks" in reply to any form of spiritual argument, or choosing "biological" or "fallacy" to reply to other valid arguments.
Well, the claim that you are committing a fallacy is a direct challenge to the validity of your argument - if it's not a fallacy, you sort of need to demonstrate why, not merely state it.
We have Torridon choosing to use complex scientific jargon and quote animal behaviour to say why we cannot possibly choose what we want.
How dare he use a proven methodology and examples to demonstrate a point - of course, you can just dismiss that if it doesn't fit your narrative.
We have Stranger consciously claiming that it is a logical impossibility for any of us to choose anything which has not already been predetermined by past events over which we had no control.
Right. I note you don't actually have anything here that's contradicting that.
Then we have BlueHillside choosing to use leprechauns, together with the phrase "emergent property" and his consciously contrived "two levels of reality" to explain away his own conscious freedom.
He makes an analogy, and you end up criticising the absurdity rather than recognising the accuracy. The phrase 'emergent property' has meaning, and applies - if you want to discredit it, even if only as it applies to this, you need to engage with the definition, not just dismiss it.
And there is Sebastian who often chooses to repeat the same phrase over an over again.
Like, say, asserting without any basis that he's chosen to do so?
Not forgetting enki and Outrider who often engage in thoughtful exchanges yet fail to acknowledge their freedom in choosing to make these exchanges.
Thank you, but again you've merely asserted that. You've not tried to explain how something can be both free and will, you've not explained why you think this dualistic 'spirit' approaches somehow evades determinism, and you've not explained how the evidence of brain activity being measurably demonstrable in advance of consciousness isn't heavily weighting the evidence in favour of the idea that brain activity is the source of consciousness.
And Susan chooses to admire these well thought out arguments without realising or acknowledging the truth that such arguments would not exist without the conscious freedom needed to think them up.
Except that the presence of well thought-out arguments is not an argument for free will - indeed, a well constructed argument that is predicated upon taking apart, element by element, the proffered claim is evidence of cause and effect.
And Ippy chooses to blame it all on my childhood indoctrination.
It does seem likely, given the particular phrasing and naming conventions of the infrastructure around your model, that it's an artefact of a Christian philosophy - whether that happened in your childhood or later I couldn't say.
Our conscious freedom to choose may well be beyond human understanding, but it is a reality we all engage with.
Again with the assertion - if we didn't accept your word on it the first time, why do you think we're going to now?
And it is not an unintended accident of nature, because such freedom does not exist in nature.
We have very little understanding of the nature of consciousness in ourselves, to presume to understand its limitations in other creatures on Earth - notwithstanding the possibility of natural non-terrestrial consciousnesses - is pushing things a bit far, given that you've not offered anything from first principles to demonstrate a necessary restriction or limitation.
This miraculous gift has a divine purpose.
In my experience, the use of 'miracle' is to either cover 'I can't explain this' or 'I have no evidence this actually happened' - in this instance, it's at least one of those, if not both, but either way it's not any addition to the discussion.
There are many different paths to choose from in this life. I sincerely hope and pray that you all choose the one which leads to the eternal salvation of your soul.
And now you're throwing in 'souls' for a bonus unevidenced claim - I'll give you this much, you're persistent
O.
