(May 8, 2016 at 7:47 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make any sense of that, sorry. I shall have to abandon the discussion. What I believe is irrelevant, I'm examining just the argument itself.

If I ever make an argument phrased this way, then I am being fallacious. I don't believe I ever have, though. What I believe is likely to be true is not the same as stating what is true for the sake of argument.

Don't be scared, I don't bite.

Yes, it exists on a sliding scale. If you don't agree, you have it also. If you agree, you have it also.

(May 8, 2016 at 8:16 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Yes, it exists on a sliding scale. If you don't agree, you have it also.

How's that?

(May 8, 2016 at 8:17 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:16 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Yes, it exists on a sliding scale. If you don't agree, you have it also.

How's that?

In some things/times I have free will, in others I don't. The amount of my free will depends on external factors.

(May 8, 2016 at 8:20 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:17 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: How's that?

In some things/times I have free will, in others I don't. The amount of my free will depends on external factors.

Can you mention one thing you have control over?

(May 8, 2016 at 8:20 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:20 am)mh.brewer Wrote: In some things/times I have free will, in others I don't. The amount of my free will depends on external factors.

Can you mention one thing you have control over?

Continued participation in this thread.

(May 8, 2016 at 8:22 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:20 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Can you mention one thing you have control over?

Continued participation in this thread.

You don't think you're forced to either participate or not at any given moment by processes in your brain that you couldn't possibly control? Not to mention, if your internet connection was suddenly lost, or something similar happened, that too would be outside of your control and you'd be forced to stop participating in the thread, whether you wanted to or not.

(May 8, 2016 at 7:47 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't make any sense of that, sorry. I shall have to abandon the discussion. What I believe is irrelevant, I'm examining just the argument itself.

If I ever make an argument phrased this way, then I am being fallacious. I don't believe I ever have, though. What I believe is likely to be true is not the same as stating what is true for the sake of argument.

It is a bit complex... and I can't be 100% sure of this, so...take it with a pinch of salt.

There are various levels at which we think.
At some level, the deterministic biology/chemistry/physics become entangled into an idea, a thought... be it to eat, to breathe, to scratch, to open one's eyes, to calculate a sum, to think about the origin of the Universe, how we should behave, etc...etc...etc...
This is the illusion, that our thoughts are generated by us, and not by deterministic biochemistry. What sort of evolutionary advantage would we have from being aware that our thoughts are brought forth by myriad biochemical reactions? I think that would be a distraction... a waste of mental energy... and evolution, as much as it tweaks, it tries to keep waste away.

The great trick is that all previous thoughts, even those that have been communicated to us from other people's minds, get incorporated into our own minds and are then a part of the subconscious/deterministic thought pattern. And this pattern is ever changing, for it is ever thinking and (for most of us) ever receiving new input from the outside world.

And, if previous thoughts enter our minds.... the "shoulds", mostly brought to us by society, are also in there. They are a part of our thought process... our deterministic thought process... our decisions.

(does any of that make sense?)

(May 8, 2016 at 8:28 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 8, 2016 at 8:22 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Continued participation in this thread.

You don't think you're forced to either participate or not at any given moment by processes in your brain that you couldn't possibly control? Not to mention, if your internet connection was suddenly lost, or something similar happened, that too would be outside of your control and you'd be forced to stop participating in the thread, whether you wanted to or not.

Yeah, but he said that free will is on a spectrum. You may not have complete control over anything due to external factors, but putting those factors aside, continuing to post here becomes a matter of you desiring to do so. No one else is forcing you to post or not post here in such a scenario.

Poc: I think I get what you're generally trying to say.

But the argument "don't send people to prison" is clearly assuming that we "should" do it for reasons other than it's an inevitable conclusion. If that was the case, the whole argument would be redundant anyway.

The argument is clearly aimed at a group of people with free will, holding judgement over those without. But it forgets that the first group are no exception to the premise.