Yes, I've notice rather a lot of semantic games going on.

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:I see what you did there.

What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

Matthew Shute wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:I see what you did there.

What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

What's your problem?

JasonPhillips wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

What's your problem?

You made a statement: "contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum." I'm questioning this statement, and your grounds for making it, in the above terms. You imply that you know what philosophy is, unlike everyone else in the forum - but a full search of your posting-history shows up scant evidence for that. My line of inquiry is not a problem, it's an attempt to solve this puzzle.

DavidMcC wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:I see what you did there.

What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

I'm inclined to agree, based on my experience of it, and in spite of the name. I think it''s a "word games" forum!

That's already to assume that a lot of philosophy isn't just playing with words, as some contend.

EDIT: Alterntively, it's a head-banger's paradise!

Maybe it's only the RealTM nutters who never question their own sanity.

Yes, I question mine every time I come to this forum!

Just what is JasonPhillips's problem?

Oh, right... he's a knuckle-dragging troll for Jesus; after only two days he has managed to get his oafish self banned from the forum. Even now he's probably setting up his own internet shrine to True PhilosophyTM, Christian Troll Philosophy, and dribbling all over himself in raptures of glorious internet martyrdom. Do you see what one can achieve with a little free will?

Matthew Shute wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:I see what you did there.

What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

So, you're another poster with logic problems, then? You're as bad as Cito. I am 100% atheist evolutionary biologist (enthusiastic amateur), and have said so many times. Perhaps you never bothered to read the biology threads?

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

So, you're another poster with logic problems, then? You're as bad as Cito. I am 100% atheist evolutionary biologist (enthusiastic amateur), and have said so many times. Perhaps you never bothered to read the biology threads?

Read the sequence of replies, David. Read it very carefully. Now answer this simple question: To whom is Matthew replying?

After you do that, re-think delivering your insulting ad hom about posters with logic problems.

Oh, and thanks for the anecdotes. Nobody here is accusing you of being a Jesus freak. However, your dedication to defending the metaphysical concept of free will does not appear to derive from an analysis of the facts. You fit your interpretation of the facts to suit your theory of free will; atheism is irrelevant, and I cannot see why you'd bring it up except that you had problems in parsing the post to which you replied. Not logic problems, but problems in extracting from that post any information it contained, i.e., an analysis of the facts.

If you want to be like the evolutionary biologists, stick to analysing the facts, rather than worrying so much about logic problems.

DavidMcC wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

JasonPhillips wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
What did I do there, then?
AFAIK, I am only sticking with the proper meaning of consciousness, not the woo-based, made-up version favoured by some in the philosophy forum.

Contrary to popular opinion, this isn't, strictly speaking, a philosophy forum.

You'd know, would you? What is your pet definition of philosophy, and how does the forum fail to live up to your high standards? A lack of "Jesus is cool" threads?

So, you're another poster with logic problems, then? You're as bad as Cito. I am 100% atheist evolutionary biologist (enthusiastic amateur), and have said so many times. Perhaps you never bothered to read the biology threads?

FFS, David.

I would save my time and advise you to read the post (#2229) directly above mine, but you're allegedly ignoring Cito di Pense.

It is surely a bit of a strawman to suggest that I'm calling you a minion of Jesus on the basis that I implied JasonPhilips (a troll, now banned) was the same.

This isn't the first insulting strawman you've waved in front of me, and I suspect it won't be the last. You also seem to have forgotten about the FUA you signed up to, judging by the fact that you've just insulted two current members of the forum in as many breaths.

OK, this thread is now too ridiculous for words. I am not going to bother with it. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but you two both earned it, by flagrantly and persistently insinuating against all logic that I am either a god-botherer, or a woo-merchant, or both. Don't you realise that that's insulting nonsense?
... No, don't bother answering that, because I care not for this thread any more. I have already, long ago in this thread, said what matters about Sam Harris and the Libet experiments, and the incorrect brain model on which no FW is based. If anything, no FW is what WLC's god really would do for us, by having foreknowledge of everything. For some reason, you don't realise that, or simply buy his wibble that tries to reverse the conclusion.
EDIT: Oh, and the erroneous use of "determinism" has already been exploded in this thread , in terms of any biologically meaningful effect.

OK, this thread is now too ridiculous for words. I am not going to bother with it. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but you two both earned it, by flagrantly and persistently insinuating against all logic that I am either a god-botherer

That is utter and blatant nonsense. You are apparently basing this accusation on the idea that one of my responses to Jason-fucktard-Philips (the banned troll) was a response to you - a mistake which has now been pointed out to you twice. Look, it's up there in black-and-white for all to see. I haven't, not even once, insinuated that you're a theist or a Jesus-freak. If you think I have, point me to the relevant post.

I don't think I've "earned" any such insult from you, simply for questioning your various claims. The suggestion that I have earned your baseless ad homs is itself another thinly-veiled insult.

DavidMcC wrote:I have already, long ago in this thread, said what matters about Sam Harris and the Libet experiments, and the incorrect brain model on which no FW is based.

You've got about a fifty posts in this thread attacking what you take to be Sam Harris's brain model or theory of mind. Given that there have been no recent posts by anyone defending Sam Harris's brain model or theory of mind, that would appear to be thrashing the hell out of another strawman.

Neither have I asserted that there's no free will. Scepticism of the claim, "there's free will", is not rooted in some theory by Sam Harris. It is rooted in scepticism and ideas about the burden of proof, in which the onus is on the one making a positive claim.

If anything, no FW is what WLC's god really would do for us, by having foreknowledge of everything. For some reason, you don't realise that,

What is this, another veiled insult about what I don't understand? It's fairly obvious that if there were an omniscient God, this would negate some free will models - God would already know, in advance, what you were going to do. That doesn't mean that scepticism of FW is based on theism.

or simply buy his wibble that tries to reverse the conclusion.

What wibble am I supposed to be buying into?

I have already rejected the terminology 'Free Will'. Has too much baggage. It's somehow a subject, but I guess it somehow cannot be made to interest me other than as how it is dealt with by the people who do want to talk about it.

wonka08 wrote:I don't think that Free Will in accordance with the Christian God could exist. If he is omniscient then he would know every decision of every person past and in the future. So our decisions would already be decided for us in the future, we're just following them.

The way i see it is that this universe is predictable. However, we are not capable of processing everything and using it to accurately predict everything however, it is shown it is possible by humans predicting simple things we are famililar with (ie. simply enough we predict where a ball is going to be in its trajectory to catch it.) this example is a simple version of how i see whats going on with the universe. Becuase I assume this to be true and that God understands this universe perfectly becasue "he" created it so using that truth that he knows everything about the way the world works so intimately that he is able to basically know how everything is going to play out

edroz wrote:

wonka08 wrote:I don't think that Free Will in accordance with the Christian God could exist. If he is omniscient then he would know every decision of every person past and in the future. So our decisions would already be decided for us in the future, we're just following them.

The way i see it is that this universe is predictable. However, we are not capable of processing everything and using it to accurately predict everything however, it is shown it is possible by humans predicting simple things we are famililar with (ie. simply enough we predict where a ball is going to be in its trajectory to catch it.) this example is a simple version of how i see whats going on with the universe. Becuase I assume this to be true and that God understands this universe perfectly becasue "he" created it so using that truth that he knows everything about the way the world works so intimately that he is able to basically know how everything is going to play out

Balls do not possess free will. Compare yourself to a ball if you will, it does not alter the argument. If god is omniscient, then we do not possess free will - since the decision come to is predictable from the starting conditions.

edroz wrote:

wonka08 wrote:I don't think that Free Will in accordance with the Christian God could exist. If he is omniscient then he would know every decision of every person past and in the future. So our decisions would already be decided for us in the future, we're just following them.

The way i see it is that this universe is predictable. However, we are not capable of processing everything and using it to accurately predict everything however, it is shown it is possible by humans predicting simple things we are famililar with (ie. simply enough we predict where a ball is going to be in its trajectory to catch it.) this example is a simple version of how i see whats going on with the universe. Becuase I assume this to be true and that God understands this universe perfectly becasue "he" created it so using that truth that he knows everything about the way the world works so intimately that he is able to basically know how everything is going to play out

If what you say were to be true, then certain parts of both pure mathematics and established physics would have to have gaping holes. I think you'd be way over your head on this, but you're welcome to your opinion whatever competencies you may have or lack (and I myself happen to think things are more predictable than many others here, by the way).

Someone wrote:

edroz wrote:

wonka08 wrote:I don't think that Free Will in accordance with the Christian God could exist. If he is omniscient then he would know every decision of every person past and in the future. So our decisions would already be decided for us in the future, we're just following them.

The way i see it is that this universe is predictable. However, we are not capable of processing everything and using it to accurately predict everything however, it is shown it is possible by humans predicting simple things we are famililar with (ie. simply enough we predict where a ball is going to be in its trajectory to catch it.) this example is a simple version of how i see whats going on with the universe. Becuase I assume this to be true and that God understands this universe perfectly becasue "he" created it so using that truth that he knows everything about the way the world works so intimately that he is able to basically know how everything is going to play out

If what you say were to be true, then certain parts of both pure mathematics and established physics would have to have gaping holes. I think you'd be way over your head on this, but you're welcome to your opinion whatever competencies you may have or lack (and I myself happen to think things are more predictable than many others here, by the way).

It is impossible to predict anything with 100% accuracy due to inaccuracies in the measurement of the initial conditions, and any loss of accuracy in prediction is compounded when attempting to predict through to further iterations of a system.

Increase in measurement of initial conditions results in diminishing returns for the accuracy of your prediction due to the compounding nature of errors in a recursive system.

There is also a threshold of measurement accuracy where the interference of your measurement changes the initial conditions causing the accuracy of your predictions to start to fall off.

Even if you could have interference free measurement of initial conditions, you would still have to deal with quantum effects which is inherently unpredictable and deals only with probabilities.

But unpredictability has absolutely nothing to do with free will, whatever free will is even supposed to mean.

Can anyone answer this question honestly? If you had free will, would you do anything differently than if you didn't?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Can anyone answer this question honestly? If you had free will, would you do anything differently than if you didn't?

Probably a bit tangential - but I realise that like most people I make decisions heuristically, I know that this is the wrong thing to do much of the time and can readily lead to answers with adverse long term consequences. So if I had the ability to recognise when to think more carefully before acting - I would go for it.
In other words there are many decisions, that with the benefit of hindsight I would change - but being vigilant for future instances where this should be applied is hard work, so I ration where I apply 'free will', i.e. thinking through problems to reduce bias before reaching for the apparently obvious conclusion.