neeeel

I dont understand., why would you let someone insult you? Are they a friend if they want to insult you/ I realised its context dependent to a degree I dont see how it couldnt be. What other motive could you have?

I have never got the insults thing. It has always baffled and scared me, and it seems clear that very often, they do mean it. What does it mean to "not mean it"? Their insults are directed at your weak spots, or are indicative of the the insulter having contempt or dislike for some area of your personality ( if you are fat, they arent going to tease you about being thin, they are going to target your fatness). They are trying, for whatever reason, to hurt you. I suppose I can understand that its somewhat of a test to see how seriously you take yourself, how close to reality you are. But further than that, it seems designed to hurt.

nope, still not fallacy fallacy , for reasons given in previous post.

right, none of what I wrote is "causes have effects " or "free will is magic" , thanks for clarifying that for everyone

none of my arguments were these.

nope.

nice try

Not sure what you mean. I am pointing out that you are presupposing free will in your questions. I realise thats not an argument in support of determinism, but it is important. I keep pointing it out, but you keep doing it. No, Im not doing the fallacy fallacy. And your questions arent arguments, so I am not assuming them true or false. I am saying, if you are already presupposing the answer in your questions, then you are asking the wrong questions. It similar to the question "do you still beat your wife", unanswerable in any meaningful way. basically what I have already said, there is no volition. Thats been my whole point from the start, that theres no volition, no will. How have you missed that? Your question isnt an argument, so I dont know why you think it requires a "counter argument" , and your counter argument wasnt an argument. 2/10 for effort. my answer to the question is "there is no volition" Try giving me an argument ( you know, in the form of a set of premises and a conclusion) and I will give a counter argument. Im embarrassed for you that you think you have done any of this. You havent argued for determinism, just strawmanned, as usual.

But your questions are along the lines of "Look! these thoughts happened!! Therefore free will!" Or else you are already accepting free will in your question, and using it to prove free will, eg "Does accepting determinism require me to think about it logically and of my own volition?" the concept of volition requires free will to be true, so you are basically saying, if free will is true, then free will is true. If your understanding of determinism has changed, then its not noticeable to me. If its true, its true. I dont know what relevance the benefit is. asking about the benefit is along the same lines as "I will believe in god, because it makes me happier" How should I know why you havent accepted it? What do you mean "how you are supposed to accept it"? I have laid out the logic of why I think its true, so either I have done a very bad job, or you arent really understanding, or its more important for you to believe in free will. I have already explained why I came to accept it. I looked at how thoughts happen, how decisions happen, and its clear to see that there is no person or thing choosing the thoughts, that you cant predict your next thought, that you cant think a random thought, that thoughts cant think other thoughts, that thoughts come from nowhere, and then disappear, that thoughts appear in consciousness, rather than consciousness actively doing them, that the voice in your head is a thought, and no different from other thoughts,and so on.

we have been over these questions many times, each time I explain it to you, and then next time, the same questions come up. I guess either I am not explaining very well, or you arent grasping it. Im not sure what use explaining it again would be. Determinism does not equal things not changing determinism does not equal things not happening. Its possible to believe in determinism (or, as I want to put it, see that determinism is true) and not sit in a pile of your own shit until you die. Things still happen, even afterwards. Thinking does not automatically preclude determinism, or prove free will. Thoughts cant think other thoughts. the voice in your head is a thought. there is no you choosing thoughts. There are just thoughts, and other thoughts saying "look, I chose that thought" How would choosing a thought even work? Can you point me to the mechanism? Between one thought and the next, how does it happen, what inserts itself between the space between one thought and the next, and chooses what the next thought is? and so on

Its not contradictory that a determinist argues with someone. You havent shown that it is. If determinism is true, that doesnt stop determinists from arguing about free will, I dont know why you think it would? Is it because the belief in determinism is contradictory with arguing about determinism? Again, it isnt. You can believe that theres no one there to make choices or to decide to change, and still argue with them about free will. Im not sure where you got the idea that you were winning, or showing contradictions.

there are none. The statement "reality is absolute" tells you nothing about what might or might not exist in that reality.

ye, doesnt disprove determinism in any way, and isnt contradictory. Its almost like you dont understand determinism, even after many many discussions about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQlPjUSj7no

Of course its an argument. but as you say, whatever

Heres what you said P1) I decided Im going to think about a white elephant P2) A thought about a white elephant is in my head therefore C) I decided to think about a white elephant ( yes, you put in the negative, as in "Did I not decide that", but its your conclusion, nevertheless) Your conclusion is contained in your premises. Thats nothing like what I am saying. I am not denying that thoughts exist.

Except that thats not what I did. Your argument was "Look, I decided it, therefore I decided it". your first sentence was literally "I decided that I'm going to think about a white elephant." and then you used that as proof that you decided. I am not saying, I didnt decide, therefore I didnt decide. I am pointing out various different things about thought that dont add up.

I have pointed a number of times at where you can look and see that what I am saying is true. Except where you acknowledge that you dont always choose your thoughts. Doesnt this intrigue you at all? Some thoughts are unchosen, and yet we believe that we choose thoughts. Even the ones that arent chosen, we think, well, I must have chosen it. There is NO difference between a thought that we believe we chose, and a thought that we acknowledge was unchosen. Other than another thought saying "I chose that". We are going round in circles, so perhaps we should leave it there. This analogy isnt applicable. With thoughts, what kevin is saying is that thoughts can be unchosen, but we can step in at any time and start choosing them. In your analogy, this would be analogous to the car driving itself, staying on the road, dodging other cars, going to your destination, and , at some point, you step in and take control, and start driving.

No, you didnt decide that. Your thought about a white elephant was brought up in response to reading my post. Even the white elephant thing is a giveaway, as its a common thing to be told not to think about. Your brain read the post, and in response, with no input from you, produced the thought about a white elephant. Then there were further thoughts about how this thought of a white elephant was proof that you had decided to think about a white elephant. I would guess that you also missed the subtle chain of thoughts where the brain cast about for something to think about. If you can explain to me the mechanism by which you decided to think about a white elephant, so that I can observe the same mechanism in myself, then you have shown me something. But just asserting, "I had the thought, therefore I chose the thought" means nothing. I have pointed you to where to look to see that you arent actually choosing or thinking your thoughts, but I dont think you have looked. You are assuming your conclusion in your premises. "I decided to think the thought", without even challenging it. right, and this is another indication that I am correct. How is it that some are not chosen, and some ( according to you) are? What is it that steps in , how does it step in, and suddenly starts choosing? Isnt it more likely that ALL thoughts are unchosen? The voice in your head , that you think of as you, is a thought. Thoughts dont think other thoughts, thoughts dont choose other thoughts.

who or what chooses what to think about? Sure, there were thoughts about what you considered was relevant, disregarding the rest, etc. You assume that you chose it, the voice in your head saying "Look! I just chose that!" , but, that voice in your head is a thought too, and you didnt choose that thought either. We are at an impasse. I know that what I am saying about thought is true, because I proved it empirically with my own conscious experience ( edit to add, as in, by looking at my own experience, I can see that it's true) Im not sure how we can get past that.

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense to me. Scapegoats are used to bring peace back to the community, except its a fraud, exposed by jesus, except, when scapegoats are removed, violence gets worse( implying that scapegoats did actually work in lowering violence, ie not a fraud). Perhaps I have misunderstood And, I do not see how any of this proves anything. The bible shows that the scapegoat narrative is a fraud, therefore the bible is true?

Good catch, I see what you mean. It is confusing. I could say a number of things, but I dont think they are convincing to anyone, including me, at the moment. I will have to think on it. Ok, here goes My reasoning is from observation of thought. Thoughts appear and disappear. There is no selection process, they are there, and then they arent. There is no point at which we can see consciousness intervene and go "ok, we will think that thought". There are thoughts about thoughts, but these are thoughts like any other, and with these, there is also no selection process, they are there, then they arent, and there is no point at which we can see consciousness intervene and go "ok, we will think that thought". Its not possible to predict the next thought. Any prediction of the next thought IS a thought, and you didnt predict it. Its not possible to think a random thought. To go into RAM , as it were, and select a thought at a certain location. If you observe the process of selecting a random thought, theres usually a stream of thoughts, with thoughts about those thoughts, commenting on whether they are random enough. Or else, the mind goes blank and waits for inspiration. Or there is a set of stock "random thoughts" that obviously arent random, Thoughts appear in consciousness. In that sense, they appear similar to sights, sounds and other sensory data. You wouldnt claim that consciousness was doing the sounds, sights etc. If consciousness was doing thought, then it would be a simple matter to stop thinking about something, or to simply select a different thought. Anyone who has experienced a racing mind, or a persistent train of thoughts, knows that its difficult/impossible( I acknowledge that learning/training is possible, but thats nothing to do with consciousness on its own, but is a mark of the flexibility of the biological system as a whole, it doesnt imply that somehow consciousness stepped in and did something) The language you use implies there is something else outside our consciousness that uses the consciousness. "We use our consciousness". Perhaps thats not what you really meant? Or you meant that consciousness uses consciousness? If you meant the former, what is it that volitionally uses consciousness? If the latter, it sounds like the idea of being able to lift yourself by your own bootlaces. ( I use the language too, theres no problem with using it, I just want to be clear that by my using it, it doesnt imply that I believe in free will) Do you agree that there can be no ghost in the machine that somehow inhabits the body, pulls the strings? I know thats likely not your position, I just want to check. I want to make sure I understand your reasoning as to why you think determinism is false. your reasons are 1) there is no evidence that human intelligence is the same as computer intelligence 2) computers dont have subjective experience, we do 3) consciousness consumes a large amount of resources. have I understood correctly?

your conclusion C) I cannot believe in a man who lives in the sky who will eventually judge me on how well I've completed the ethical obstacle course of life does not follow logically from your premise P) reality is an absolute That is, your premise says nothing about your conclusion, theres no deductive step to get from P to C

I dont think that determinism says that consciousness is meaningless fluff, or has no value, but its a system, a process, and part of the deterministic universe. None of what you said disproves that consciousness is deterministic. Something can have immense value, and still be deterministic. Further, its not clear to me what consciousness does. Its clear to me what it doesnt do, that is, think, choose, act. These things happen in consciousness, but consciousness isnt "doing" them ( perhaps that doesnt make sense, but its the best way I can think of to express it)

In that case, what you posted is in no way evidence for the anthropological truth of the gospel. For a start, it uses the bible to prove the bible. It doesnt prove that gods exist, it doesnt prove that jesus was divine. Even if we accept the fact that the christian myth is from the point of view of the victim , this proves absolutely nothing. If that is your standard of evidence, then I am sure you will also accept the islamic claim that, because the koran has existed for centuries without a single alteration, this is evidence that its the real truth.