(March 12, 2012 at 6:50 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: I didn't quite understand the conditional argument, so an expansion would be appreciated.
Too late to edit, but I just went ahead and looked up the conditional analysis, and it also seems irrelevant to me.
The ability of S(individual) to do A(perform a free will action) is subject to S being capable of A.
Irrelevant because in order to prove free will via this argument, you must already have a priori assumption that we are capable of free will. Which is the entire point of the discussion.
I do agree with the premise that if we are capable of free will, then we have, at least partially, free will. However, the assumed premise is not proven, so neither is the argument imo.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm