free will

[bennyboy]

Um, don't we currently have a free will thread open?

[Edwardo Piet]

There are many.

[Edwardo Piet]

If only people had the free will to stop creating them eh?

[brewer]

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

bold mine

GOD???????

[Whateverist]

Of course! The unmoved mover. Eureka!!!

[Sappho]

bold mine

GOD???????

Of course!  The unmoved mover.  Eureka!!!

I hadn't even thought about that, but now that you mention it it surely seems like the only and ultimate explanation instead of all the uncountable other possibilities...
Thank you for bringing it up, and may the force be with you.

[Sappho]

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

If only particles exist, how do you explain the existence of living cells?  And even if living cells exist, how do explain the existence living tissues composed of cells let alone organs made up of systems of tissues?  For that matter how do you explain multi cellular creatures.  If you can't explain it, obviously we don't exist and the volition we experience as creatures is entirely illusory.  No free will is only the tip of the iceberg; it's actually no nothing, all the way down .. except for particles of course.  They are free to continue binging around haphazardly.  

Nervy matter thinking it can just come together in any old manner that suits it.  Doesn't it know that our ability to explain it is paramount?  Without a good explanation particles may only bing around chaotically.  At least until we can explain how they do more than that they should refrain from all forms of complexity.[/sarcasm]

I don't quite understand what you think cells are made of. Molecules maybe? And please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't molecules made of atoms, and atoms of neutrons and protons (and elektrons) , and aren't those made of quarks, and aren't quarks and elektrons subatomic PARTICLES?

That's like saying houses don't exist because they're made of bricks.

On the other hand I'm sorry if your whole comment was sarcasm, that isn't clear to me.

If only people had the free will to stop creating them eh?

I dunno, do we? Maybe we should make more just to find out.

[brewer]

Of course!  The unmoved mover.  Eureka!!!

Oddly, you've just described my rectal vault. Amazing!

[Sappho]

Well since particles is all we have discovered, it must be, as I said, be something we haven't discovered yet.

No, it "mustn't be". 

You're still relying on the truth of two fallacious arguments in making that statement - which is, itself, a complete non-sequitur.  

You might be right here, although I don't think that something that only moves when a force is apllied to it suddenly moves on it's own just because there are more of it.

I'm not sure what you're commenting on.  I'm right about what?  I made no comments to that effect.  

Also it is true that one particle cannot write this message but more together can, however that doesn't mean they have chosen themselves to do so.

OFC not.  I only commented upon your means of inference, not whether or not our will is free.

You're right on the first one.


I'm referring to what you said: "A particle may not be able to type this message to you.  Obviously, a thing made out of particles can.  That a thing made out of particles can type this message to you, does not imply that any single particle can."
I saw the connection you tried to make between keeping or loosing an ability when being split up, but I didn't agree with your example.
Although I might have misunderstood what you meant there.
It's not really an excuse but I'm having a hard time talking about philosophy in English. I keep trying though.

[The Grand Nudger]

My example was only a long form description of -why- fallacies of composition and division are uninformative.  

Is it the second half of the example which you need further elaboration on?  If so, try this one on?  

That a 747 made out of 147k pounds of aluminum can fly, does not mean that 147k individual one pound ingots of aluminum can fly.