Posted: Jan 11, 2017 7:27 am
ughaibu wrote:But as I demonstrated, the probability that all human behaviour is "chemistry and physics doing its thing" is infinitely small, and the probability of this human behaviour being a matter of chance is also infinitely small. And as this is a requirement for the human behaviour that we call "empirical science", to claim that it is in conflict with any empirical science entails a contradiction.
Did you think you could actually convince somebody to take one viewpoint or the other simply by asserting it aggressively out of your rear end? Because, as pointed out elsewhere, you seem not willing to let the matter rest.
If it's not my choice to accept or dismiss free will, which after all is philosophy and not science, why should I make special exceptions for the choices that are left me? If I don't accept free will, then I'll go on regarding my choices in retrospect as having been necessary. But that sure saves time and energy in the regrets department. I half think that you go on wanking your free will thesis because you like the ideas of regret and guilt better than you like the idea of choosing freely.
the probability that all human behaviour is "chemistry and physics doing its thing" is infinitely small
That's not quite theology, yet, ughaibu, because you haven't mentioned god or karma, but it's fucking close. You either dismiss supernatural agency or you don't. What you can't do with chemistry and physics is predict human behavior to a T, using quantum mechanics, because it's simply fucking inappropriate to try. Trying everything else has proved inappropriate so far, as well, so we're cast upon thge semantics of 'infinitely small" for a probability you cannot evaluate. You apparently regard the failure of quantitative methods as an excuse to blow assertions out of your arse, just like everybody else does who feels he has to have a say about it.