(August 9, 2013 at 1:30 pm)genkaus Wrote: You didn't state it as an opinion when you kept repeating that free-will must imply ultimate self-responsibility.
If it isn't my opinion, who's is it?
Yes, of course, it's my opinion, anyway, moving on.
(August 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm)HalcyonicTrust Wrote: The way free-will exists within a dualistic context.
What kind of dualism? Physicalist? Non-physicalist?
If non-physicalist, I'm not interested, it can be rejected as nonsense. If physicalist then it makes no difference anyway, it's still nonsense because it doesn't give you any more meaningful free will.
If it does... how?
Quote:Not sure how it makes sense - it doesn't make sense to me. But yes, that is how they regard "free-will" and they would regard dice-rolls as "free-will"[...]
So their position is unsound.
Quote:But the fact that you are doing so by simply changing the definition makes your argument invalid.
I will answer questions only from now on, since that was a pointless statement you made because as I said, I changed the definition because I believed it to be an unsound one, so the validity/invalidity is irrelevant.
Quote:Only is you assume free-will to mean ultimate self-determination and moral responsibility to mean ultimate moral responsibility - otherwise, there both free-will and moral responsibility can exist in a meaningful way.
No it can't because other forms of free will and responsibility are trivial truths.
Quote:Substance dualism - within which the mind or the soul is exempt from causal determinism and chance - and is therefore considered to be ultimately self-determined.
Ultimate self-determination is impossible since our will is ultimately either determined by unconsciousness and thereby not self-determined, or it isn't determined at all and therefore can't be self-determined at all since determination is a requisite for self-determination.
From now on I am going to respond to your questions only. Your statements I shall ignore.
