(July 12, 2009 at 6:57 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:(July 12, 2009 at 6:15 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:Indeed he has to. He claims that it is has validity to us:(July 12, 2009 at 3:18 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Then define free thought for me.
Does he have to? After all he doesn't claim it exists, others do! I agree with Ev 100% on this one ... the existence of free will (freedom of thought) is an assumption because there is no objective way of assessing whether what we thing is freedom of thought actually exists.
Kyu
EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:Whatever we call 'free' and 'choices' is what is free and choices 'to us'.
Eh? I said it's defined by whoever defines it. Whatever it is 'to us'. I believe our 'choices' are entirely mechanical and there's no evidence to the contrary whatsoever (that I know of). I'm not defining free thought, I'm saying whatever you call it and however it's defined...that doesn't stop our choices from being entirely mechanical...like I said: I know of no evidence to contradict that. Calling something free doesn't make it free - as in it's not evidence that everything isn't just mechanical (whether in a deterministic universe or indeterministic universe...unpredictability doesn't give credence to the ability to make non-mechanical choices).
EvF
