ProfessionalTeabagger

How did you mix your labor with the whole forest? Why shouldn't you own land because you planted and harvested from it first? It is a necessary condition that you have some ownership over the land in order to harvest it. It is usually only the arrogance of socialists who think they have some magical claim over unowned land that entitles them to even challenge the ownership of a farmer who took the land and made something useful with it. Yes you can sell yourself. Why not? You own your children in a sense but don't jump to conclusions because you also own the moral responsibility for your children which you created. If you were to do something wrong to the child then you also own THAT. If all the land has been homesteaded and for some reason it is all rented out (like states) then I guess you have to pay rent. If you're paying rent then you're paying for some value that's been created on the land. If it's just some guy who drew a line and said "pay in order to use this" then it's just some statist loon.

Do you have an argument?

It isn't.

Determinists can't think. http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/handy-dandy-guide-for-skeptic-of.html

I have no choice. Determinist fail.

I disliked it because I was determined to do it and had no control. Blame the big bang and go get your explanation from IT.

It's not just human intuition, it's the empirical observation that I can do it. Do you get that? It's a fact. There is no possible doubt that free will exists. If you think it is just determined that's fine but don't shove your religious view down my throat as if you've proved it. It is not known how volition works. It is not known how causation works. It's is not known if causal determinism is even valid. You are making stuff up to trying and wish away the gap in our knowledge. You don't know and your attempts to show some logical contradiction between being able to choose and the "laws" (which I don't think you have a clue about either and probably think are prescriptive) of the universe are contrived. Physical facts do NOT support determinism. You are just lying or delusional. You are lunatics. In fact I'm not even sure if determinism is currently the the consensus view in physics at the moment. Don't you fucking dare tell me that I hold this position because I want it to be true when if it WAS true I would have no choice or control of the matter and there'd be no truth anyway. Don't preach your pretentious crap to me. Make an actual argument that isn't "I don't know how that works, therefore determinism". Who cares whether you liked it or not? Do you know how creepy that is? You are are like the Stepford philosophers. It's bad enough that you think you've proven there's no free will and /or that it HAS been proven but to have this condescending horseshit about how brains just need to adjust. You absolute creeps. This is a new secular religion. I don't have to make determinism out to be a horror. I just have to accurately describe it. Your position is so absurd I can't even begin to grasp it. This is what happens when you pretend you know something you don't know. We on the free will side here just don't know how choice works. Obviously you DO know how it works and we can all stop looking now. Determinist fail.

Why would I want to give you a "succinct view" of THAT? What are you even talking about? "Deterministic free will"?

It's the same physical basis as your determinist superstitions. WTF else would it be? If you want to go argue some theistic, ghost in the machine view of free will then go argue with those people. Don't bring it to us. Who argued that complexity = free will?

Straw man of the free will position. No one here has argued that free will is outside physical laws. YOU have concluded that based on an argument from ignorance and projected that conclusion onto our free will position. IOW, you've defined free will as necessarily being outside the "laws" and then argued that it must be outside the laws.

The good thing here is that this kind of creepy, confused nonsense is what spanking advocates have been reduced to.

Fine. If you want to play that game then you admit you have no objective standard for your proposition. Therefore it is just opinion. It's something you prefer to believe. Some people like free will. Some people like ice cream. Some people like Jesus. Whatever. Our neurons determine the standard of truth. You happen to like determinism. It fills in that sucking gap in human knowledge about the nature of causality. If you like something better tomorrow then that will be true. You can't understand the difference between an objective standard and a subjective one while simultaneously claiming that determinism is true (which necessarily requires an objective standard). Until you can state what standard you're using, I refuse to debate you again and I request that others do the same.

We derive logic from the consistent behavior of matter and energy. The laws of logic describe reality. You are using this objective standard to ask me the question? Are you going to respond to my challenges?

Reality. Matter and energy.

I'm at around 15 mins and I can't take anymore. If they want to believe this drivel that's fine. I just want to know if they'll leave the rest of us alone. From what I've seen so far they will not. Why are they called libertarians? They're just communists.

It doesn't need to be complicated because you've been using, at least in principle, some objective standard to have this debate. Logic is an objective standard for example because it is derived from an external source. It is a valid standard because it is empirically verifiable and universal. We have both already submitted to an ideal of reason and evidence in order to argue our positions. If you now have a problem with what is and isn't an objective standard by which we can measure our arguments, etc then the time to sort that out was at the start; not when contradictions in your position are pointed out; otherwise it just looks like you're looking for an epistemological escape hatch. You have stated that the standard you are using to judge whether determinism is true is subjective. This standard is just as determined as everything else, right? But in order for such a proposition to be true it must be judged by an objective standard. Your proposition that determinism is true is not judged by an objective standard. Therefore that proposition cannot be true.

You have to hit them with "The non-voluntary reality".

And Dsayers, I offer his response as evidence.

I think you are correct. They can call themselves Libertarians but their position is inconsistent with the NAP. So they're really just statist-lite.

I would advise you or anyone not to talk to deepgreenresistance. His position is religious and he's the most abusive and sanctimonious person I've encountered on FDR. This guy believes trees are conscious and that something called "earth" is our ruler and that the length of time a species spent living a certain way means it is somehow better or correct and romantic myths about primitive man and any number of superstitions and fallacies. He refused to even talk about this subject on the call in show when invited to do so. He's a religious crackpot and deserves to be ignored.

Your proposition is that determinism is true and that free-will is an illusion (more or less). You hold this as true and so you are applying a concept of truth to that proposition. You must have a standard by which you measure the truth or falsehood of that proposition. If, as you say, the standards by which you determine truth and falsehood are subjective and generated by your neurons then your conclusion that determinism is true is also subjective. It is opinion. The proposition which is generated by your neurons only conforms to a standard of truth generated by your neurons. In order for a proposition to have objective truth value it must conform to an objective standard. Your proposition does not (and cannot) conform to an objective standard, therefore your proposition cannot be true. These are great questions and I really like to talk about this aspect of things but I am a little worried that now that we're getting somewhere in the debate about the truth of determinism / free will it might derail things a bit to start a side discussion about the emotional or ethical consequences of it. Just a thought.

Sorry but it DOES contradict. If you say that everything appears to have a cause then you face the problem that something must not have a cause. The cosmology is not relevant to the point, only the logic. Logically you have to concede that not everything appears to have a cause. The human mind has only evolved to perceive cause/effect/cause/effect... . So to say the only alternative to determinism is random is to project your limited human perception onto the nature of reality and consciousness. What IS a "causal chain" in reality? What IS a cause? Determinists use these terms so loosely yet arrive at the most precise claims. If free will DID exist and our minds had the capacity for self-generated choice then there would still be antecedent events but it would not be determined in the sense you seem to mean. You need to define "cause" in a way that is not circular, otherwise you're using a term that we can gain no purchase on. I find it a little strange that you being more on the deterministic side are willing to consider supernatural explanations whereas I, on the free will side, am not. Would you really consider the supernatural?

Yes? Okay so consciousness is both a 100% effect of the neurons activity but also a partial cause of the neurons activity? If you're only other alternative is that everyone is insane then that IS an alternative so what would be the difference between being objectively true and insane? Another alternative is that everyone is mistaken because in my view there must be an external standard of truth and that standard is not simply generated by neurons but is apprehended and derived from the consistency of reality. But in your view the standard of truth is subjective and purely generated by neurons and things are true if everyone believes them and gives consistent descriptions. By that standard you must agree that determinism is not true, right?

So if everyone believes in Allah then the presence of Allah becomes objective? If NOT everyone shares the same subjective experience then those experiences cannot be objectively true? So consciousness can cause neural activity but consciousness is solely determined by neural activity?

If the standards are subjective then they are not objective. Objective standards are required to determine (ha ha) truth or falsehood. Therefore because the standards by which you base your conclusion that determinism is true are subjective, your conclusion that determinism is true cannot be true. It is subjective opinion with no truth value. Do you see what's wrong with that?