The Fallacy of Composition

[Kullervo]

I think we need to collect these variants and critique them:

Geometric figures are made of points
Points have no dimension
Geometric figures have no dimension

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Atoms are lifeless
You are made of atoms
You are lifeless

Atoms are colorless
You are made of atoms
You are colorless

Things exist in space
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in space

Things exist in time
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in time

A thing exists if it interacts physically with other things
The universe is made of things
The universe interacts physically with other things

Fallacies of composition consist of three statements
This list consists of fallacies of composition
This list consists of three statements


NEXT!?

[Franko]

Geometric figures are made of points
Points have no dimension
Geometric figures have no dimension

With a proper definition of “dimension” this syllogism is instantly FALSE.

Dimension = two or more points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Same as above, but now you also need a proper definition of “line”

Line = a ray between two points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Atoms are lifeless
You are made of atoms
You are lifeless

Define lifeless.

Atoms are colorless
You are made of atoms
You are colorless

Atoms are not colorless. Atoms emit photons, and photons generate color for the atoms.

You didn’t define “Atoms”

Things exist in space
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in space

This one just doesn’t make any sense.

Things exist in time
The universe is made of things
The universe exists in time

That’s TRUE.

A thing exists if it interacts physically with other things
The universe is made of things
The universe interacts physically with other things

That’s TRUE.

Fallacies of composition consist of three statements
This list consists of fallacies of composition
This list consists of three statements

F = 3
L = F + F + …
L = 3 (???)

Whitefork … this isn’t the first time you have posted this stuff. I get the sense that you really really don’t want this syllogism to be TRUE:

Atoms obey the laws of Physics (A < P)
You are made of Atoms (Y = A)
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (Y < P).

But not understanding how syllogism’s work, is not going to make this syllogism FALSE.

… and it doesn’t matter if you post a million faulty ones, that won’t magically change mine from TRUE to FALSE.

[The Fool]

Franko is now peddling this dead horse on deism.org again (as "wraith") since his banning as "serpent". The people on that board are just as unimpressed with his "atoms obey" fallacy.

Franko seems to be restraining the potty mouth (as "wraith") on the deism board, he probably wants to last a little longer this time....

I don't regard this as a violation of my decision to stop putting coins in Franko to make him dance, I'm talking about him....not too him.

[Checkmite]

Does anyone think I ought to be a participant on the Deism.org forum as well?

[Franko]

Ohh -- you'd fit right in there jkorsi ... they'd love you over there ...

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Franko

Same as above, but now you also need a proper definition of “line”

Line = a ray between two points on a plane not occupying the same coordinates.

Now that's just pathetic. The original argument still holds because a geometric figure's points do not occupy the same coordinates:

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Atoms are not colorless. Atoms emit photons, and photons generate color for the atoms.

You didn’t define “Atoms”

Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......

<snipped the rest due to ad naseum>

[Franko]

Geometric figures are made of lines between points
Lines have one dimension
Geometric figures have one dimension

Are all of you A-Theists Logically incapable or something? It is some sort of genetic defect – I’d swear …

Do lines between points (obviously implying multiple lines) have ONE DIMENSION?

[Define “atoms” …]Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......

Right … and do you “see” those particular atoms? The ones not emitting visible photons? Did you have a relevant point to make? … don’t tell me you are going to start stalking me now, too?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Wrong again... Photons are excessive energy which is dumped by an electron moving from a higher to lower orbit. The photon itself has no colour, it has a frequency. Only certain frequencies are visible, which are produced by only a few atoms. Therefore rest of these photons (and therefore) atoms are LITERALLY colourless.......
Actually, that's not entirely true. The frequencies below the visible spectrum are called infrared in color and those above are called ultraviolet. And the visual spectrum is different from species to species, just because we can't see every color is no reason to say that the color does not exist.

Please pardon the intrusion. I have no interest in being drawn back into the flame war, just wanted to correct that minor point.

Upchurch

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Franko


Do lines between points (obviously implying multiple lines) have ONE DIMENSION?


Lines that are drawn between two points, or along a series of several points, have one dimension - Length. Remember, a line which changes direction - even slightly - somewhere along it's length is no longer a line, but is a curve or an angle, depending on the circumstances.

For example, a line that spans the distance between point A and point B is line AB. If it started at point A, and ends at point E while travelling through points B, C, and D, it is called line AE. If the line starts at A and curves toward point B, it becomes curve AB. A line which starts at point A, reaches point B and changes direction there, travelling then straight to point C is called angle ABC, and consists of two line segments, line segment AB and line segment BC.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Atoms obey the laws of Physics

This is simply not true. Atoms *define* the laws of physics. By observing atoms, we have found certain predictable characteristics about their existance. In a number of these observations, we have found certain consistancies in their activities. These consistancies have been defined as "Laws" because they have always held true in every observation made. Further experimenting has shown that in every possible scenario, these consistancies have always held true. Atoms do not "obey" these laws, the laws are observations of these atoms.

While it is a popular phrase, "Obeying the laws of physics" it is quite misleading. If you take any object, observe it, and declare what it is doing, you can say the object is now obeying your declaration. If fact, the object is simply doing what it is doing. You making a declaration regarding what the object will do will have no effect on what it does; it is not "obeying" your declaration, you are making a declaration based on what it does.

So, the syllogism is quite false.

[Franko]

[Atoms obey the laws of physics …] This is simply not true. Atoms *define* the laws of physics. By observing atoms, we have found certain predictable characteristics about their existance. In a number of these observations, we have found certain consistancies in their activities. These consistancies have been defined as "Laws" because they have always held true in every observation made. Further experimenting has shown that in every possible scenario, these consistancies have always held true. Atoms do not "obey" these laws, the laws are observations of these atoms.

So if atoms are never observed NOT to obey the laws, how can you be claiming that you have EVIDENCE that Atoms do NOT OBEY the laws of physics??? You said: This is simply not true. How is it NOT True according to what you just said?

While it is a popular phrase, "Obeying the laws of physics" it is quite misleading. If you take any object, observe it, and declare what it is doing, you can say the object is now obeying your declaration. If fact, the object is simply doing what it is doing. You making a declaration regarding what the object will do will have no effect on what it does; it is not "obeying" your declaration, you are making a declaration based on what it does.

… And it does what it does, because it is OBEYING the Laws of Physics.

So, the syllogism is quite false.

… Only if your dreams come True.

[Tricky]

Admittedly Franko's sillygism contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make.

For example, where is the logical proof that says "if you obey TLOP (or even PLOP) you have no free will"?

Where is the logical proof that says "If you obey TLOP/PLOP then souls are gravitons"?

How about "TLOP/PLOP say Hell exists".

No, the sillygism is really unimportant. In fact it is arguably close to being correct. What we haven't seen is any other statement of logic that supports his further assumptions. All we have seen is hypothetical and rhetorical questions. It seems odd that this "religion" which is supposedly based on logic, cannot create more one logical statement, and a flawed one at that.

[Franko]

Admittedly Franko's sillygism [trixy expressing his objectivity] contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make.

Really? So when you drive (control) your Car, who is more conscious – you or the Car?

So when TLOP controls you, who is more conscious – You or TLOP?

Explain you answer.

For example, where is the logical proof that says "if you obey TLOP (or even PLOP) you have no free will"?

Where is the logical proof that says “If you obey TLOP you do have “free will””?

How can something control you utterly and yet you claim to have “freedom of action”? How does that make ANY sense? Can you even define “free will”? You actions are the result of deterministic chemical reactions and nothing more. Are you claiming that your mind somehow controls the forces of nature? The forces of nature control your mind.

Where is the logical proof that says "If you obey TLOP/PLOP then souls are gravitons"?

So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind?

Is something NOT proven FALSE similarly automatically TRUE in your mind?

If not, why not? Why the double standard? Or do you only apply these rules as suits you when they subjectively agree or disagree with your a priori fantasy beliefs?

How about "TLOP/PLOP say Hell exists".

If you have no evidence this is True, and no evidence that this is False, then it is an Unknown. Of course I am guessing that you can magically divine that it is FALSE somehow. If you ever care to explain how your “magical powers” actually work, let me know. I can always use a good laugh.

No, the sillygism is really unimportant.

Ohh, I bet you have been praying a lot lately that this were TRUE.

In fact it is arguably close to being correct. What we haven't seen is any other statement of logic that supports his further assumptions.

And what of your “further assumptions” why don’t they have to be proven?

Are Cars more conscious then their Drivers?

What makes you believe that You are more conscious the Tlop?

What is your evidence or reason for believing in “free will”?

If there is no evidence for “God”, and so you say NO GOD, then why is it that there is no evidence for “free will”, yet you claim FREE WILL EXIST? Why the double standard? Why do you believe that your religious dogma is so special? Why do you believe that your assertions do not have to be logical proven, only the religious beliefs of others? Is it because your religion is more True then the others? Don’t all religions claim that? Why should I believe your religious claims?

All we have seen is hypothetical and rhetorical questions. It seems odd that this "religion" which is supposedly based on logic, cannot create more one logical statement, and a flawed one at that.

Where exactly is the “flaw”? I didn’t see it in your post, just a lot of your typical mumbo-jumbo. That “flaw” you A-Theists keep talking about seems about as invisible as the Christian God.

You believe that there is evidence for “free will”, what is the evidence?

If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?

[evildave]

If all of this is given all this as read, what makes you think your 'godess' has any free will of its own?

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Admittedly Franko's sillygism contains a fallacy of composition, but it is really not important. Even if you accept it as true it says nothing about any point he is trying to make

Now that you mention it, what point is he trying to make?

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as free will?

If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

[wraith]

Originally posted by The Fool
Franko is now peddling this dead horse on deism.org again (as "wraith") since his banning as "serpent". The people on that board are just as unimpressed with his "atoms obey" fallacy.

Franko seems to be restraining the potty mouth (as "wraith") on the deism board, he probably wants to last a little longer this time....

I don't regard this as a violation of my decision to stop putting coins in Franko to make him dance, I'm talking about him....not too him.

hahaha
You really are a credit to your name...Ill give you that much

[wraith]

Originally posted by Whodini


Here is a recent exchange over there:


wraith wrote


----
atoms obey the TLOP
you are made of atoms
you obey TLOP
----


Some one else responded


----
NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!! Are we at this argument again?
----


See Franko, everyone is tired of your ********.

Actually, that was I that posted that "********"

Though your attempt to sound cool was dearly noted lol

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Franko


Really? So when you drive (control) your Car, who is more conscious – you or the Car?

So when TLOP controls you, who is more conscious – You or TLOP?

Explain you answer.


I am more conscious than the car. By itself, the car has no conscious volition.

TLOP/PLOP do not control me in the sense of dictating my every move (and you have never given the logic/evidence that supports your claim that they do.)

Imagine there were a PLOT (Perfect laws of Traffic), which you could not disobey. It would be impossible to run a red light or make an illegal turn. The PLOT would still not decide for you whether to turn right, turn left or go straight at an intersection (provided you broke no laws in doing so). In the same way, the PLOP restrict what is possible, but do not control you. I don't see how that could be any clearer, Franko, that TLOP/PLOP do not prohibit free will.

I have answered your question and explained my answer. Please do not claim later that I have not done so. The possibility that you will not accept my answer and explanation does not mean they were never made.

Originally posted by Franko

How can something control you utterly and yet you claim to have “freedom of action”? How does that make ANY sense? Can you even define “free will”? You actions are the result of deterministic chemical reactions and nothing more. Are you claiming that your mind somehow controls the forces of nature? The forces of nature control your mind.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. See the above example. Living within the "laws of nature" does not imply having each decision dictated by the same.

Originally posted by Franko
So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind?
Of course not, however, you have occasionally claimed exactly that. Recall once when I asked you for evidence, your reply was "The evidence is: There is no evidence against it". In fact, this is the basis of you strawman A-Theism. If you are now saying that taking the stance that God is not proven true is not the same as saying God is false, then you are finally accepting that your previous definitions of atheism were incorrect. This is a breakthrough of monumental proportions.

Originally posted by Franko

Is something NOT proven FALSE similarly automatically TRUE in your mind?
No. For the same reason as above. In my mind, there is nothing that is 100% true or 100% false. The proportion of belief I give to anything is based on evidence. That is why I regard Logical Deism as having about a .00001% possibility of truth. Show me some evidence (hint: rhetorical questions are not evidence) and those percentages may jump up.
Originally posted by Franko
If not, why not? Why the double standard? Or do you only apply these rules as suits you when they subjectively agree or disagree with your a priori fantasy beliefs?
You are the one that is claiming your fantasy beliefs are true because there is no evidence against them. As for my beliefs, you have never correctly represented a single one of them, so it is rather disingenious to call them fantasy.

Originally posted by Franko
If there is no evidence for “God”, and so you say NO GOD, then why is it that there is no evidence for “free will”, yet you claim FREE WILL EXIST? Why the double standard? Why do you believe that your religious dogma is so special? Why do you believe that your assertions do not have to be logical proven, only the religious beliefs of others? Is it because your religion is more True then the others? Don’t all religions claim that? Why should I believe your religious claims?

A) I don't say "NO GOD". That is your strawman.
B) I have a great deal of evidence for free will. Every decision I make is evidence of free will. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than free will.
BTW: Logic is not evidence. Here is a perfectly logical statement:

All Logical Deists are idiots
Franko is a Logical Deist
Franko is an idiot

This statement is perfectly logical. By your definition, that makes it at least evidence, if not proof.

Originally posted by Franko
Where exactly is the “flaw”? I didn’t see it in your post, just a lot of your typical mumbo-jumbo. That “flaw” you A-Theists keep talking about seems about as invisible as the Christian God.
Here is the flaw, Franko, one that you have steadfastly refused to address

Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose
2) Your choices have consequences.

I would be very glad to see you address that rather glaring flaw in your philosophy.
Originally posted by Franko

You believe that there is evidence for “free will”, what is the evidence?
Every decision I make is evidence. For example, I have decided to answer this post. I don't answer all of your posts. You have exercised your free will by refusing to answer my question about the flaw in Logical Deism. All these "choices" are evidence.

Show me your evidence that these choices are made by someone other than ourselves. Remember, logic and rhetorical questions are not evidence.

Originally posted by Franko
If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?
I think you meant "less" conscious. I think it unlikely that I would find evidence for your foolish contention.

But is a simple test that will give you evidence that you are more conscious than your car.

1) Drive to the gas station.
2) Let your car decide what grade of gas it wants.

(I would love to see the evidence that your car can make such a conscious decision.)
**********
Just as an excercise, Franko. See if you can respond with statements rather than questions as I have done above, if your goddess will allow you to do so.

[Franko]

Armchairquaterback

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as free will?

If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as God?

If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as afterlife?

If that's your statement, would you define the term afterlife, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

[Franko]

Tricky,

I am more conscious than the car. By itself, the car has no conscious volition.

TLOP is more conscious than the YOU. By yourself, YOU have no conscious volition (you just obey TLOP)

TLOP/PLOP do not control me in the sense of dictating my every move (and you have never given the logic/evidence that supports your claim that they do.)

You are making the claim of “free will”; therefore the burden of proof falls on YOU to demonstrate its existence (just like the burden of proof is on a Christian to demonstrate his “God”).

… So any time you are ready to demonstrate your ability to NOT obey TLOP please let us all know (… and perhaps you should contact your buddy Randi and let him know you will be taking his million dollars).

Imagine there were a PLOT (Perfect laws of Traffic), which you could not disobey. It would be impossible to run a red light or make an illegal turn. The PLOT would still not decide for you whether to turn right, turn left or go straight at an intersection (provided you broke no laws in doing so). In the same way, the PLOP restrict what is possible, but do not control you. I don't see how that could be any clearer, Franko, that TLOP/PLOP do not prohibit free will.

Your example is rather unclear to say the least. I do not see the point you are getting at? What makes you believe you are not OBEYING TLOP? What is your empirical evidence that you can defy TLOP?

I have answered your question and explained my answer. Please do not claim later that I have not done so. The possibility that you will not accept my answer and explanation does not mean they were never made.

You are claiming that you do NOT obey the laws of Physics. Until you can PROVE this assertion; until you can demonstrate that it is TRUE, I will accept no answer or explanation you offer as EVIDENCE of your absurd wishful thinking.

You A-Theists need to learn, that claiming something is TRUE (Wishing it is True) does NOT actually make it TRUE in reality. Proving a claim TRUE actually requires an inescapable Logical argument, or some other form of empirical evidence.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense. See the above example. Living within the "laws of nature" does not imply having each decision dictated by the same.

So the Moon “lives” within the “laws of nature”, does it also have “free will”. Are the Moons actions/motions also NOT dictated by the “laws of nature”? If not, then why do you have “free will”, but not rocks or the Moon? Do animals have “free will”, or is “free will” reserved for Human Beings? Do plants have “free will”? How about a Zygote? How about sperms – do individual sperms also have “free will”? What is your evidence for your claim? At what point in the evolutionary scale does “free will” emerge?

[ So something NOT proven TRUE is automatically FALSE in your mind …] Of course not, however, you have occasionally claimed exactly that. Recall once when I asked you for evidence, your reply was "The evidence is: There is no evidence against it". In fact, this is the basis of you strawman A-Theism. If you are now saying that taking the stance that God is not proven true is not the same as saying God is false, then you are finally accepting that your previous definitions of atheism were incorrect. This is a breakthrough of monumental proportions.

1) True
2) False
3) Unknown

The “default position” is always #3 – UNKNOWN. It is you, TP, Vicky D, and all the rest of the A-Theists who have consistently claimed that the “default position” is actually #2 – FALSE. If this is NOT the case, then why do you call your self A-Theist in the first place???

You have no evidence for God, You have no evidence against God, so your default position should be #3 – UNKNOWN, i.e. AGNOSTICISM. But instead of intellectual honesty you prefer intellectual deceit; you want to claim that NO evidence for “God” actually means God = FALSE.

So what is your evidence that there is NO GOD?

The fact of the matter is YOU HAVE NONE, and instead of being honest and claiming Agnosticism you want to pretend that you know more than you actually know and claim God = FALSE, i.e. A-Theism.

You might as well be claiming that when there is no evidence something is FALSE, that makes it automatically TRUE. Logically what you are claiming is NO different at all.

You are the one that is claiming your fantasy beliefs are true because there is no evidence against them. As for my beliefs, you have never correctly represented a single one of them, so it is rather disingenious to call them fantasy.

You labeled yourself as Atheist. I had nothing to do with it, so who is really being disingenuous?

… and if I have made a claim that something is either True or False then rest assured it is only because I have evidence that it is True or False.

You on the other hand have said Time and Time again, that the default position is FALSE, and that if there is no evidence a thing is TRUE, it is automatically FALSE. This is what got you so upset before – when you had to go running to Randi, because I kept challenging you on this point, and demonstrating how ridiculous absurd it was to claim so.

I can see that now you want to pretend that you NEVER made this claim. If that is the case, then please provide your evidence which demonstrates the NON-EXISTENCE of God. If you cannot do this, then why claim NO GOD (God = False)? Why not be honest and call yourself AGNOSTIC?

Also Since you claim that you do not believe something unproven False is True, then please provide your empirical evidence which supports the existence of “free will”. If you believe in “free will” then you must have evidence for its existence. What is this evidence (other than you want it to be true)?

A) I don't say "NO GOD". That is your strawman.

So are you changing the label by which you call yourself?

Are you conceding to Agnosticism and admitting your belief in Atheism was flawed?

B) I have a great deal of evidence for free will. Every decision I make is evidence of free will. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than free will.

I have a great deal of evidence for God. Every instant I am alive is evidence of God. You have presented not a single shred of evidence that this is anything other than God.

Is that what you call Logic Trixy? I’d love to see you explain why your statement proves “free will”, and mine does not prove “God”, but I know you won’t even bother to address it. Intellectual honesty in these debates has NEVER been your hallmark.

BTW: Logic is not evidence. Here is a perfectly logical statement:

All Logical Deists are idiots
Franko is a Logical Deist
Franko is an idiot

This statement is perfectly logical. By your definition, that makes it at least evidence, if not proof.

Well it is definitely evidence of Something, Trixy, I personally won’t call it logic, but I will leave that for the reader to decide.

Here is the flaw, Franko, one that you have steadfastly refused to address

Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose
2) Your choices have consequences.

I would be very glad to see you address that rather glaring flaw in your philosophy.

I explained this in detail in a post the other day to Loki. I know that you read that post as well. Why do you want me to repost it yet again?

If statement #1 is true, and you cannot choose, then statement #2 must be false. So there you go Trixy your question doesn’t even make sense.

If you are claiming that you can defy the laws of physics simply provide your evidence for this belief. If you are claiming that there are no consequences for your actions, please provide your evidence for this belief.

The problem is your religious dogma (i.e. your belief in “free will”, and non-belief in “god”) have left you ill prepared to deal with reality the way reality actually is. You have come to believe that the universe conforms to you’re A-Theist Fantasies, and you seem unable to shatter those myths in the face of obvious errors.

[whats your evidence for “free will”? …] Every decision I make is evidence.

Ahhh … so testimonials constitute empirical evidence now? I guess the fact that a lot of people say John Edwards can talk to the dead makes that true also?

For example, I have decided to answer this post.

You didn’t decide. Chemicals reactions in your brain forced you to respond. Are you claiming that your consciousness somehow magically disobeyed the laws of physics to make this post?

I don't answer all of your posts.

So not answering my posts constitutes evidence of your consciousness disobeying the laws of physics?

You have exercised your free will by refusing to answer my question about the flaw in Logical Deism. All these "choices" are evidence.

1) I NEVER exercise “free will” because no such thing exist.
2) There are no flaws in Logical Deism, at least none that you are capable of perceiving.
3) You claiming “free will” no more proves “free will”, then a Christian claiming “god”, proves “god”. If this is incorrect, please explain why your claims are always True without evidence, but NOT a Christians claims?

Show me your evidence that these choices are made by someone other than ourselves. Remember, logic and rhetorical questions are not evidence.

Sure they are. SO long as they are TRUE:

Atoms obey the laws of Physics.
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

You yourself admitted this was True Trixy. Are you claiming that it is untrue now? One way or the other … what is the evidence for all of your silly irrational claims? You are nothing more than a religious fanatic – admit it.

Franko:
If you believe that things which control other things are less conscious (Tlop) then the things they control (You), can you please provide your evidence that your Car is more conscious then you are?

Tricky:
I think you meant "less" conscious. I think it unlikely that I would find evidence for your foolish contention.

You are the one making the foolish contention.

You claim that there is no evidence for “God”. What is your standard of “evidence”?

TLOP controls you.
You control your Car.

You are more conscious then your Car.
TLOP is more conscious then You.

Its that simple.

But is a simple test that will give you evidence that you are more conscious than your car.

1) Drive to the gas station.
2) Let your car decide what grade of gas it wants.

(I would love to see the evidence that your car can make such a conscious decision.)

I am still waiting for you to prove “free will” so I can see evidence that YOU are capable of making a conscious decision …

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko


Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as God?

If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Aha, there it is. There is no such thing as afterlife?

If that's your statement, would you define the term afterlife, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

Prove they do exist.

You know nobody can so much as prove Aquaman doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts he does.

Oh, but we have no evidence but your WORD they do?

Gosh, and your WORD is valued so highly here, and yet nobody believes you?

How sad.

[Franko]

Evildaveybuoy,

[God, afterlife, etc. …] Prove they do exist.

Ohhh -- you first! How’s about you proving dat dere “free will” you A-Theists are always talking about. … and then you can prove that your consciousness is NOT algorithmic in nature, and instead it is a “magical” thing that does not obey any logical rules.

You know nobody can so much as prove Aquaman doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts he does.

You know nobody can so much as prove “free will” doesn't exist to the satisfaction of someone who pathologically asserts it does.

Oh, but we have no evidence but your WORD they do?

Other than your WORD, why should I believe all your ridiculous claims? Such as:

1) People who do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions are actually more moral (honest) individuals.
2) “free will” exist despite your inability to produce a shred of evidence, or even explain what the hell it is.
3) We cease to exist when we die – you might as well be claiming that the TRUTH is ultimately NOT Beneficial – what is your evidence for this claim?
4) There is no evidence for “God”. There is no evidence that TLOP is more conscious then you are -- You might as well be claiming there is no evidence You are more conscious then your Car when you are driving it.
5) Human consciousness is a random phenomena, it is NOT algorithmic or Logical in nature.

Etc., etc. …

Gosh, and your WORD is valued so highly here, and yet nobody believes you?

Is that using the A-Theists definition of “Nobody”? For someone claiming not to value my WORD, you certainly seem to follow me around a lot and hang on every one of them.

How sad.

That’s called projecting Davey-Boy. Take a good long look in the mirror …

[evildave]

I dunno, FRANko, but it seems that someone who believes his own private godess will make everything "all better" after they die is the one who is trying to escape consequences of their actions.

Your life didn't mean anything, nothing you did caused any harm, your mommy, er 'Godess' will make it all better for you.

[Fade]

Maybe we should start Fallacy of the Week threads. Every week, a new fallacy will have a write up.

We'd run out after a year or so, but oh well.

[Franko]

EDB,

I dunno, FRANko, but it seems that someone who believes his own private godess will make everything "all better" after they die is the one who is trying to escape consequences of their actions.

Yeah sure ... Whatever you say MR. Cease-to-exist.

Your life didn't mean anything, nothing you did caused any harm, your mommy, er 'Godess' will make it all better for you.

Enjoy your meaningless consequence free existence magic A-Theist-boy!!!

[evildave]

Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

[Franko]

Evildavey-boy,

Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

So you are actually claiming that you can Defy the Laws of Physics?!?!?!

HEY EVERYBODY EVILDAVE CAN DEFY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!!!

Why haven’t you applied for the Randi Prize? Is that why you are here? How exactly are you able to avoid the “puppet-master” and demonstrate “free willy”? Can you explain it to us, or like the Christian God, do you work in mysterious ways now Davey-buoy?

Come on … don’t be shy. You have nothing to fear from us mere TLOP obeying mortals. Explain how you do it? What is your evidence that you do NOT obey the Laws of Physics?

Why do you make so many claims and then NEVER back them up with anything but an assertion? Seriously Davey, if you are going to claim Randi’s prize, just be done with it already.

[evildave]

Where did I say that?

Oh, I see the 'evildave' in your own private imaginary world must have.

Well, I'm sure you can imagine his answer well enough.

[Franko]

Evildave,

Same to you, oh one who believes his imaginary friend is his puppet-master and keeper.

Translation:Same to you, oh one who believes that TLOP (imaginary according to Dave) is controlling your actions (puppet-master and keeper in davey’s terms).

Then Franko said …

So you are actually claiming that you can Defy the Laws of Physics?!?!?!

Then Davey (in his typical, clueless, “Who-Me?”) fashion retorted:

Where did I say that?

Oh, I see the 'evildave' in your own private imaginary world must have.

Well, I'm sure you can imagine his answer well enough.

… Davey-buoy – seriously … who do you think is dumb enough (other than other A-Theists) to be fooled by your obvious double-talk, lies and deceit? Not everyone is a stupid A-Theist Relgious Fanatic like yourself (Troll). You see, despite your misunderstanding that this forum is just a place of worship for the fanatical followers of the Cult of the "One True Religion" of A-Theism, in reality this forum is actually a place for Skeptics and “free thinkers”. No Skeptic is going to believe your bogus, contradiction riddled assertions just because you are asserting them – FatBoy!

[Franko]

EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Franko,
If that's your statement, would you define the term God, and explain how it does not exist(according to that definition)?

Nope, that's not my statement. My statement was
If that's your statement, would you define the term Free Will, and explain how it does not exist (according to that definition)?

I'm asking you for the definition of Free Will that you are using. It's a pretty straight-forward question. Further, I'm asking for your explaination as to why it doesn't exist.

So far, all I've seen is a bunch of comparisons between non-related objects, with no explaination for why they are being compared. Your explainations are unclear, so I'm asking for clarifications. I'm not asking for proof, just a solid statement and a clear explaination.

You know, something brief, with small words in short choppy sentances. Something an eighth-grader could clearly understand.

[Franko]

Armchairguy,

I'm asking you for the definition of Free Will that you are using. It's a pretty straight-forward question. Further, I'm asking for your explaination as to why it doesn't exist.

That is EXACTLY the same as a Christian asking you to define his God for him, and then explain why it DOESN’T exist. Why is it that You A-Theists CANNOT resist a double standard?

So far, all I've seen is a bunch of comparisons between non-related objects, with no explaination for why they are being compared. Your explainations are unclear, so I'm asking for clarifications. I'm not asking for proof, just a solid statement and a clear explaination.

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

How much clearer can I make it then that? If you are asserting that you have “free will”, then it sounds to me like you are saying your mind controls the laws of physics. Can you prove that?

If you cannot – you have no “free will”. At least … no more than the Moon, or a rock does.

[evildave]

I'm sorry, I was concentrating on your "50", questions in the 'Direct Questions' topic.

[Franko]

EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

Troll-buoy!

[ArmchairPhysicist]

That is EXACTLY the same as a Christian asking you to define his God for him, and then explain why it DOESN’T exist. Why is it that You A-Theists CANNOT resist a double standard?

Okay, what the heck..

Free Will: The ability to act upon a desire.

TLOP will predict the results of that action, but will not stop me from acting upon them.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Franko
EDB ...

I await your next fluffy insult-filled, non responsive 3 line (or less) post.

Troll-buoy!

I'm sorry, I was concentrating on your "50", questions in the 'Direct Questions' topic.

Post it there to get an answer.

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
You are made of atoms.
You OBEY the laws of Physics.

How much clearer can I make it then that? If you are asserting that you have “free will”, then it sounds to me like you are saying your mind controls the laws of physics. Can you prove that?

Franko / Wraith/

Come on. This is high-school stuff. A basic logical fallacy. Let us take it step by step, though, since it still manages to elude you.

First, look up "fallacy of composition" on the inernet. There are many sites available that cover an abundance of fallacies. Read the many different examples there until you get it. Then come back to these posts.

Now, let's look at your syllogism. Let's reframe it at an intermediate hierarchical level:

Atoms obey the laws of physics.
Molecules are made of atoms
Molecules obey the laws of physics.

Moleucles obey the laws of physics
Enzymes are molecules.
Enzymes obey the laws of physics.

Oops. Already a chink in the armor, eh? These enzyme molecules chelate. They assemble or disassemble other molecules. These are new properties. And, we've jumped at least two levels already, eh? We zipped right through chemistry and got into biochemistry. Maybe these new properties of chemicals, and more specifically ,biochemicals, have something to do with the divisions of science? I dunno. Could be.

Now let's get more specific about this emergent property, with a new syllogism:

Enzymes assemble / dissassemble other molecules by hooking themselves onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.
You are made of enzymes
You assemble / disassemble other molecules by hooking yourself onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.

Assemble, disassemble away. Or, as you prefer, continue to dissemble.

Forgive him, posters, for he cannot rub two premises together to start a syllogism.

Cheers,

[UserGoogol]

TLOP controls you.
You control your Car.

You are more conscious then your Car.
TLOP is more conscious then You.

What the heck does the ability to control things have to do with conciousness?

The pulley controls the rock (which is attached to it.)
But, the pulley is not more concious than the rock. Both are pretty darn non-sentinent.

[ImpyTimpy]

I have no problem with this (for the sake of argument):

Atoms obey the laws of physics,
I am made of atoms,
Therefore I obey the laws of physics.

So:

There are many laws of physics,
I choose which laws of physics to obey,
Therefore I have free will.

Logically proven wouldn't you say :D

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Now let's get more specific about this emergent property, with a new syllogism:

Enzymes assemble / dissassemble other molecules by hooking themselves onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.
You are made of enzymes
You assemble / disassemble other molecules by hooking yourself onto a section, flexing and grabbing the molecules to perform the operation.

Good stuff alright. Which parts of TLOP did you say these assembling/disassembling molecules are not obeying?

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

There are many laws of physics,
I choose which laws of physics to obey,
Therefore I have free will.
Please climb a tall building and check to see if you can ignore gravity after you jump.

Originally posted by hammegk

Good stuff alright. Which parts of TLOP did you say these assembling/disassembling molecules are not obeying?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where in my post I said that?

Cheers,

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by hammegk

<snip>
Please climb a tall building and check to see if you can ignore gravity after you jump.

I never said I can break a law of physics, I can choose which ones I will obey given specific circumstances. In the case of gravity, I can either choose to walk off a building and fall to my death or not (this way I am choosing whether or not I wish the law of gravity to act upon me in that specific instance).

[Kullervo]

What I was hoping to generate was a discussion on the nature of logical fallacies, not another discussion of Franko's syllogism, which I deliberately left out.

Carry on without me.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where in my post I said that?

Cheers,

He Can't, Diet Franko has been well trained in the use of the straw man.

[wraith]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


I never said I can break a law of physics, I can choose which ones I will obey given specific circumstances. In the case of gravity, I can either choose to walk off a building and fall to my death or not (this way I am choosing whether or not I wish the law of gravity to act upon me in that specific instance).

I see where youre coming from.

However, where is your evidence to support that your "choice" to walk of the building or not was not the result of TLOP.

Does the moon choose to orbit the earth? Your reply would probably by something like "thats different I perceive, I can make choices, I have free will and the moon doesnt"

Atoms obey TLOP
Youre made of atoms
You obey TLOP

The bottom line is you either control TLOP or TLOP controls you. The difference between you and the moon in this regard is that you have the ability to observe. Does this mean that you control TLOP?


Since some are trying to "shut down" the syllogism by claiming that it commits the fallacy of composition, it shouldnt be too hard to demonstrate where it is flawed.

Ive read some of the arguments against, and I must say that you guys provide a good source of entertainment lol

:rolleyes:

[Mossy]

Jesus this is old.

Do you think the atheists on this board just created the phrase "fallacy of composition"? No, it is a common, well-defined logical fallacy.

Point out the flaw? That IS the flaw - it is a composition fallacy.

Here, from this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) website:


1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.


Here, from Google (http://www.google.de/search?q=fallacy+of+composition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&meta=) see a whole bunch of examples.

The flaw isn't with "atoms obey tlop" or "you are made of atoms" - it is with the composition itself.

You still won't accept that, will you? It is not an opinion, it is a fact that it is a composition fallacy.

Can we please move on???

-Ed

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mossy
Jesus this is old.

Do you think the atheists on this board just created the phrase "fallacy of composition"? No, it is a common, well-defined logical fallacy.

Point out the flaw? That IS the flaw - it is a composition fallacy.

Here, from this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) website:



Here, from Google (http://www.google.de/search?q=fallacy+of+composition&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&meta=) see a whole bunch of examples.

The flaw isn't with "atoms obey tlop" or "you are made of atoms" - it is with the composition itself.

You still won't accept that, will you? It is not an opinion, it is a fact that it is a composition fallacy.

Can we please move on???

-Ed


We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?

These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

from this, you say that the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism is a fallacy of composition... so whats the error?

atoms dont obey TLOP?
atoms obey TLOP sometimes?
Im made of atoms that dont obey TLOP?

[Titanpoint]

Originally posted by wraith



We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?

These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

from this, you say that the "atoms obey TLOP" syllogism is a fallacy of composition... so whats the error?

atoms dont obey TLOP?
atoms obey TLOP sometimes?
Im made of atoms that dont obey TLOP?

The fallacy of composition is the supposition that the Laws of Physics are deterministic. They are not.

Since TLOP are not deterministic, atoms obey the laws of physics according to statistical probabilities described by the Schrodinger Wave Equation. In point of fact, the components of atoms show such a large probability function that no-one knows where they are or their motions precisely.

The logical proposition is false.

Get over it.

TP

[Mossy]

I am going to assume that you really didn't understand my post and make one more effort:

Originally posted by wraith



We can move on once you have pin pointed where the error is.
You claim that it commits the fallacy of composition. So whats the flaw?


Did you read the links I posted? They very clearly explain what a composition fallacy is - that is the flaw.

I'm quoting it one more time, please notice the part in italics:

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties.


That is the flaw. It is that simple.



These parts a lite
This bike is made of those parts
The bike is lite

The bike may actually be heavy... depending on what you mean by lite and heavy of course, but for simplicity, this is a fallacy because the bike may be heavy.....

No, Wraith, it isn't a fallacy because the conclusion is wrong - if that were true then there would be no need to point out logical fallacies. It is a composition fallacy. You can not infer that the bike is light, simply because it's parts are light. That is the exact same problem with your "Atoms obey" syllogism. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your conclusion is right, the syllogism is flawed.

Again - we didn't invent this fallacy simply to be stubborn, it is a well defined fallacy.

Honestly, does that make sense now? If not, please read the links, show some integrity and acknowledge that the syllogism is flawed. Create a different syllogism without that flaw - it really isn't hard, Loki had a suggestion on this.


-Ed

[wraith]

Originally posted by Titanpoint


The fallacy of composition is the supposition that the Laws of Physics are deterministic. They are not.

Since TLOP are not deterministic, atoms obey the laws of physics according to statistical probabilities described by the Schrodinger Wave Equation. In point of fact, the components of atoms show such a large probability function that no-one knows where they are or their motions precisely.

The logical proposition is false.

Get over it.

TP

So things happen just for the hell of it? :eek:
If you had more info, wouldnt the probability of being wrong decrease? What if you acquired more and more info, wouldnt the probability of something eventually be either true (100%) or false (0%) ?

How often do randomly jump of buildings?

btw, I am over it
hahaha

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by wraith


So things happen just for the hell of it? :eek:



You hadn't noticed.



If you had more info, wouldnt the probability of being wrong decrease?

What if you acquired more and more info, wouldnt the probability of something eventually be either true (100%) or false (0%) ?



No



How often do randomly jump of buildings?

btw, I am over it
hahaha

People do strange things. Some people attempt to suicide, are saved, and never try again.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mossy
Did you read the links I posted?

no :cool:



They very clearly explain what a composition fallacy is - that is the flaw.

I'm quoting it one more time, please notice the part in italics:


That is the flaw. It is that simple.

If thats the flaw then you should be able to pin point the actual error. The error that relates in the actual world. It commits the fallacy of composition. Then what can you draw from this? I dont obey TLOP? So I control TLOP?

You cant just go around saying "thats the fallacy of composition" and then not explain where it fails in real life situations.

Again, you say that it commits the fallacy of composition.
So there is an error somewhere. You say that the actual syllogism is the error.
If there is an error, tell us where it fails in the universe.

You believe that we dont obey TLOP yeah?
So does TLOP obey you?


No, Wraith, it isn't a fallacy because the conclusion is wrong - if that were true then there would be no need to point out logical fallacies. It is a composition fallacy. You can not infer that the bike is light, simply because it's parts are light. That is the exact same problem with your "Atoms obey" syllogism. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your conclusion is right, the syllogism is flawed.

(read reply above)

Again - we didn't invent this fallacy simply to be stubborn, it is a well defined fallacy.

Thanks for the update Mossy :rolleyes:

Honestly, does that make sense now?

negative on that

If not, please read the links, show some integrity and acknowledge that the syllogism is flawed.

Ill do no such thing haha

Create a different syllogism without that flaw - it really isn't hard, Loki had a suggestion on this.

Enlighten me. Show me the light!

What the h*** is wrong with these guys? Are they realyy that stupid or are they simply disingenuous trolls? Either way...

Cheers,

[wraith]

Originally posted by a_common_person


You hadn't noticed.

great stuff here



No

OH!?!?!



People do strange things. Some people attempt to suicide, are saved, and never try again.

Are you saying that these people attempt suicide at random?

[Mossy]

Originally posted by mossy

...show some integrity...

Originally posted by wraith

Ill do no such thing haha


I've shown you the error. I gave you the links so you could actually verify it for yourself, you wouldn't even have to take my word for it - you didn't bother with the self-education.

If you had any idea how moronic your last post was, I'd be embarrassed for you.

On the bright side: you are officially a member of the Willfully Ignorant Moron club.

Wear the honor with pride!

-Ed

[MRC_Hans]

The bottom line is you either control TLOP or TLOP controls you.

Wont help to repeat that, it doesnt become true. Those are not mutually exclusive.

I am constrained by tlop. That is not the same as controlled.

We are acting in a rule-driven system. This makes our choices finite, but it doesnt preclude free will. I've posted to some length about this elsewhere, but apparantly the debate moved here? Well, I'm not letting you off, hehehe:

So lets examine some rule-driven systems.

One is the solar system. We know all parameters (OK, there are a few rogue astorids, but they wont matter in the big picture), and all the rules, and, sure enough, we are able to predict where all the larger bodies of the Solar system will be at any time during the next several centuries. -No sign of free will there.

Now lets look at another (and somewhat simpler) rule-driven system: The game of Chess. The rules are strict and well-defined, and the game can actually be defined mathematically, and there is a finite number of possible games (an astronomical number, to be sure, but finite). So given, say, the first 10 moves of a chess match, it should be no problem to predict the 11th? Anybody care to try?

Apparantly adding a biological intelligence to the equation makes it unpredictable. Because the human player can choose freely between possible next moves. The human player has FREE WILL, and can choose any move within the confinement of the rules for his next move. Additionally, he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible, but thats another matter.

The main flaw about the argument about materialism precluding free will is that it assumes that the system is Algorithmic. It is not, it is rule-driven.

The difference between an algorithmic system and a rule-driven is as follows:

In an algorithmic system all stimuli and responses are predefined by the constructor. If the system encounters a situation not foreseen by the constructor, it can at best present a default response.

The rule-driven system has a database of rules. In each situation it examines its ruleset, determines which apply to the situation, and ends up with one or more possible actions that are within the given rules. Then it chooses an action, either by some evaluation process or by random. Advanced systems can establish new rules and modifiy existing by evaluating results of previous actions.

The human brain is provably a very advanced rule-driven computer. It might also have a soul, we dont know that.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by Mossy



I've shown you the error. I gave you the links so you could actually verify it for yourself, you wouldn't even have to take my word for it - you didn't bother with the self-education.

If you had any idea how moronic your last post was, I'd be embarrassed for you.

On the bright side: you are officially a member of the Willfully Ignorant Moron club.

Wear the honor with pride!

-Ed

youre dodging skills are so finely tuned....been practicing I see
muhaha

[MRC_Hans]

And then there is this:

*snip*
Which of these statements is inconsistant with Logical Deism?
1) You cannot Choose
2) Your choices have consequences.

*snip*
If statement #1 is true, and you cannot choose, then statement #2 must be false.
Franko:

As you have stated that humans have no more free wil than the moon, it follows from your own logic as stated above that:

"Your choices have consequences" is false. Now, be careful, because any credibility you have as a logical debatteur is at stake here, do dont dodge this question:

You have earlier stated that:

Every man is ultimately responsible for his actions.
and
Human behaviour is controlled by reward and punishment.

Everybody makes mistakes, but we now need to know which of your contradictory statements above you want to back away from:

1) Humans have no free will.

2) Humans are responsible for their actions.

Choose one and only one, please! You cannot sustain a discussion based on contradictory axioms.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Wont help to repeat that, it doesnt become true. Those are not mutually exclusive.

I am constrained by tlop. That is not the same as controlled.

Have you been in a situation where TLOP does not govern your moves? Whats an example?


Now lets look at another (and somewhat simpler) rule-driven system: The game of Chess. The rules are strict and well-defined, and the game can actually be defined mathematically, and there is a finite number of possible games (an astronomical number, to be sure, but finite). So given, say, the first 10 moves of a chess match, it should be no problem to predict the 11th? Anybody care to try?

If I had the complete info, of course. Id be able to predict your next move.

Apparantly adding a biological intelligence to the equation makes it unpredictable. Because the human player can choose freely between possible next moves. The human player has FREE WILL, and can choose any move within the confinement of the rules for his next move. Additionally, he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible, but thats another matter.

Just because the player can "choose freely" between next possible moves doesnt mean that the next move it unpredictable. Like you said "he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible." The player's next move is going to be based on his maximum perceived benefit. There can only be one. If I had the complete information, his next move can be predicted.

How often do you jump off buildings for no reason? How about committing suicide? Have you ever seen Bill Gates try and rob a little old lady?

The main flaw about the argument about materialism precluding free will is that it assumes that the system is Algorithmic. It is not, it is rule-driven.

The difference between an algorithmic system and a rule-driven is as follows:

In an algorithmic system all stimuli and responses are predefined by the constructor. If the system encounters a situation not foreseen by the constructor, it can at best present a default response.

The rule-driven system has a database of rules. In each situation it examines its ruleset, determines which apply to the situation, and ends up with one or more possible actions that are within the given rules. Then it chooses an action, either by some evaluation process or by random. Advanced systems can establish new rules and modifiy existing by evaluating results of previous actions.

Really, the "rule-driven system" comes down to the persons maximum perceived benefit. Which is no different to the "algorithmic system."

The human brain is provably a very advanced rule-driven computer. It might also have a soul, we dont know that.

No doubt that the brain is complex. Nevertheless, I believe that consciousness creates matter...

[Franko]

A syllogism consist of 3 parts: a major premise (atoms obey the laws of physics), a minor premise (you are made of atoms), and the conclusion (you OBEY the laws of physics). Now for a syllogism to be a valid one (i.e. TRUE), it is NOT enough for the 2 premises to be correct. The 2 premises must be correct, AND the conclusion has to flow naturally (i.e. logically) from those premises.

Example #1:

Assuming the meaning of these terms (+, =) is known …

1) Major premise: 2 = * *
2) Minor premise: 4 = * * * *
3) Conclusion: 2 + 2 = 4

The major and minor premises are correct, and the conclusion flows naturally from those premises.

Example #2:

1) 2 = * *
2) 5 = * * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 5

Now in this example, we can see that both premises are valid (TRUE), but never-the-less the resultant conclusion is wrong (FALSE). The conclusion does NOT flow naturally from the two premises.

Example #3:

1) Major premise: Geometric figures are made of lines between points
2) Minor premise: Lines have one dimension
3) Conclusion: Geometric figures have one dimension

Now once again, this syllogism is flawed (FALSE), and the reason it is false is because premise #1 is false – it is ambiguously worded. Essentially premise #1 is claiming that Geometric figures equal lines. Reworded the error is more obvious:

1) All Geometric figures = Lines (G = L)
2) Lines have one dimension (L = 1)
3) Geometric figures have one dimension. (G = 1 [FALSE])

Now here’s my syllogism again …

1) Atoms obey the laws of physics (A < P: [TRUE])
2) You are made of Atoms (C = A: [TRUE])
3) You OBEY the laws of Physics (C < P: [TRUE])

Since none of the Religious Fanatics here can seem to find a flaw in either of the premises, and since ALL of the religious A-Theists with at least 2 functioning synapses have already conceded that the conclusion is TRUE and VALID, Then where is the ****ing problem with the syllogism???

If you can’t find a flaw in either premise …

… and you can’t find a flaw in the conclusion …

Then that is what you call A VALID/TRUE SYLLOGISM!!!

… get over it A-Theists, your Fate is the same as the dodo birds – deal with it!

[Franko]

btw -- Wraith ...

I forgot to congradulate you on your successful mission. I'll contact you later, behind you know who's back, as we say ...

:cool:

[Mossy]

It's all there for you Franko, just scroll back up and read it. Follow a couple of those links, composition fallacy is explained in detail - with lots of examples to make it crystal clear. (by the way, you could also follow up on what consititutes a valid syllogism in the first place)

Unless you are planning on rewriting about 2400 years of history on the topic, it would be easier to just come up with a valid syllogism to make your point.

-Ed

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


He Can't, Diet Franko has been well trained in the use of the straw man.

Truly humorous. Make a statement, then disclaim any connotation of that statement in the context of the discussion.

You may be so dense you prefer to think this thread is about fallacies of composition. Even if the composition is false, is the statement of conclusion necessarily false?

Elsewhere the syllogism has been dissected at length, and most of you know full well it is "shorthand" and can be logically presented.

Keep dissembling; it's your best stance. ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Wraith:
Just because the player can "choose freely" between next possible moves doesnt mean that the next move it unpredictable. Like you said "he will probably limit himself to moves that are sensible." The player's next move is going to be based on his maximum perceived benefit. There can only be one. If I had the complete information, his next move can be predicted.

The point is: You DO have the complete information. You have all information about the present state of the game, and you have all information about the rules governing the next move. You can even calculate the ultimately best next move. But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

About the difference between algorithmic and rule-based systems. I just explained the difference. If you dont understand it, get somebody to explain it to you. Ask Franko, he's a programmer, he ought to know. Or you can ignore it, or deny it, I dont seriously care.

And Franko, I wrote:Everybody makes mistakes, but we now need to know which of your contradictory statements above you want to back away from:

1) Humans have no free will.

2) Humans are responsible for their actions.

Choose one and only one, please! You cannot sustain a discussion based on contradictory axioms.

I'm still waiting for your answer. You have to DECIDE which one you think is right and which one you think is wrong.

Hans

[Franko]

Mr. Hand,

My sincere apologies for the actions of my Sock-puppet (Fool), but his only purpose is to constantly and repeatedly demonstrate the complete and utter fanaticism of the One True Faith of A-Theism, so I simply couldn’t resist having him reinforce his moniker.

Truly humorous. Make a statement, then disclaim any connotation of that statement in the context of the discussion.

axiom: A-Theists are unapologetic liars.

You may be so dense you prefer to think this thread is about fallacies of composition. Even if the composition is false, is the statement of conclusion necessarily false?

Well, to an A-Theist if something refutes A-Theism, then it does not constitute “empirical evidence”, “logic”, or “science”. Only things which support the dogma of A-Theism are rubber stamped with those terms.

Elsewhere the syllogism has been dissected at length, and most of you know full well it is "shorthand" and can be logically presented.

According to an A-Theists, it does NOT matter if both premises are CORRECT, and the conclusion is CORRECT; if the syllogism refutes the supreme dogma of A-Theism, then the syllogism must be claimed INCORRECT.

Keep dissembling; it's your best stance.

Be careful Mr. Hand, or I may have to use this sock-puppet to get that other A-Theist sock-puppy (Bill-Buoy) to call for you to be banned from the forum again!!! ;)

[Kullervo]

What exactly is the point of the argument? I don't see anyone disputing that we are constrained by or obey the laws of physics.

Is the point that the reason for that is a causal connection between our material composition and our behavior? (We obey the laws of physics BECAUSE we are made of atoms).

Syllogisms are not generally arguments from causation. In fact the argument is not technically a syllogism at all, the syllogistic from being (doing this from memory)

Three statements, three terms.
A major premise linking the major term and the middle term.
A minor premise linking the minor term and middle term.
A conclusion linking the major and minor terms.

the links are of the from ALL, NONE, SOME, and SOME NOT (A, E, I, O)
No more than one negative premise.
If there is a negative premise the conclusion must be negative.
The middle term must be distributed.
If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in a premise.

A (all) distributes the subject
E (none) distributes the subject and predicate
I (some) distributes neither
O (some not) distributes the predicate.

Anyhow, none of the arguments posted at the start of this thread are syllogisms by these criteria.

So, who cares, anyway? I just needed to get that out.

[chulbert]

Franko,

You've been utterly destroyed on the free will discussion. Why do you persist?

Moons don't have a will, which is somewhat of a prerequisite to a free will. Our futures cannot be known because of our self-referencing nature (freedom from fate). Nothing is controlling our minds telling us what to do (freedom from coersion).

Materialism is not at odds with free will.

This is a dead topic, philosophically speaking.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

Hans

The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

And on your discourse of algorithmic & rule-based computing machines, do you deny that both can be replaced by a Turing machine?

[Franko]

Chulbert,

You've been utterly destroyed on the free will discussion. Why do you persist?

Who do you think you are you kidding?

Moons don't have a will, which is somewhat of a prerequisite to a free will.

You have perception, that it NOT the same as a “will” (care to define that term?).

Your “will” consist of doing what the laws of physics command you to do – nothing more.

Our futures cannot be known because of our self-referencing nature

Computer programs are self-referencing (recursive/reiterative) are you also claiming that computer programs have “free will”?

(freedom from fate).

Question begging. Claiming it true doesn’t make it True!

Nothing is controlling our minds telling us what to do (freedom from coersion).

Really? Kindly Demonstrate your proof of this Assertion by defying the laws of physics.

Materialism is not at odds with free will.

Yes, I am very familiar with the dogma of A-Theism.

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of Physics (A < P)
You are made of Atoms (Y = A)
YOU OBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS (Y < P).


Please define "you". And clearly showing the differences with the definitions of "my", "I", "myself", "him", "he", etc...


By the way, there are a tautological claim I like more:

"An individual is an atom"

(just check the etimology!)

Also funny, but off topic: "A person is just a speaking device".

Yours,

Alejandro

[Franko]

Please define "you".

Do “you” mean “You” as in Alejandro? “You” as in “arivero”???

If “You” don’t know who (or what) Alejandro is, then I doubt very seriously that I will be able to explain it to you.

And clearly showing the differences with the definitions of "my", "I", "myself", "him", "he", etc...

“You” are You (also “I”) … Me and everybody are “him”, “he”, “She”, “them”, “us”, “we”, etc.

By the way, there are a tautological claim I like more:

"An individual is an atom"

(just check the etimology!)

Also funny, but off topic: "A person is just a speaking device".

… You’ve lost me here, I am unclear regarding your point.

Well, I could n accept that "you" refers to "Alejandro". Then I understand your syllogism says that "Alejandro" is made of atoms. In any case, it is clear then that it does not deduce anything about Franko, Hans, WhiteFork and others.

Yours,

Alejandro
PS: the etimological jokes were just jokes, not a point in the thread. But check them!

[Franko]

Well, I could n accept that "you" refers to "Alejandro". Then I understand your syllogism says that "Alejandro" is made of atoms. In any case, it is clear then that it does not deduce anything about Franko, Hans, WhiteFork and others.

Ohhh ... I never claimed that syllogism was a proof against Solipsism, just "free will". Of course, if Solipsism is True, then you would have Free will.

None of your figments would (they'd be algorithmic), but YOU would have Free Will.

(A < P)
(Y = A)
(Y < P)

These are common abreviations for the following asserts:

The set of objects holding property A - is contained in - the set of objects holding property P.

The set of objects holding property Y - is equal to - the set of objects holding propery A.

The set of objects holding property Y -is contained in- the set of objects holding property P.


I'd suggest you everyone to review your "translations" and see if they really fit in this pattern.

Originally posted by whitefork
What exactly is the point of the argument? I don't see anyone disputing that we are constrained by or obey the laws of physics.

whitefork,

The point is, these anti-JREF trolls:
a) don't understand basic logic and
b) wish to push this invalid syllogism well beyond your statement.

They wish to sell this idiot "proof" that science requires the lack of free will.

Sorry your thread's been hijacked. Clearly there are several (at least) on this forum who need to understand the fallcy of composition.

Cheers,

Originally posted by Franko
Be careful Mr. Hand, or I may have to use this sock-puppet to get that other A-Theist sock-puppy (Bill-Buoy) to call for you to be banned from the forum again!!! ;)


Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

[Kullervo]

Doesn't matter. Maybe I need to work up some new material.

Funny thing about the fallacy of compostion is that the usual examples are so lame.

I have an especial love for the classical syllogism, though

Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque, prioris:
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco, secundae:
Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton, Bocardo, Ferison, habet:
Quarta insuper addit Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.

Anyone remember that one?

[Franko]

Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

Oooooo ... I am just all a tremble Billy-Bitch.

Are you going run and tell Randi on me again?

hehehe ....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Back off on the libel, wranko, or I might just work to that end. Capiche?

OOhhhh, nooooooo, Mr. Bill! *******. ;)

[Franko]

Yeah Mr. Hand Billy-Bitches motto is if you can’t win an argument with logic and reason, and you can’t just shoot them or (better still) burn the heretic at the stake, go run and whine to Randi that they are making fun of your stupid, ridiculous, insane Religion.

Waaaaaaa :( …. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! :(

(sobbing) Don’t make fun of the One True Faith!!! … Waaaaaa!!!! …

[MRC_Hans]

Franko, you are stalling. You have still not answered my question. Your basic premises are contradictory, which one is wrong? Come on man, you can still restore some credibility, state where you failed. Why do we have to wait?

And your free will argument is shot. YOU agreed that the purpose of your much-debated syllogism, was to show that in a rule-constrained system, free will cannot exist. I have proven you wrong. If God decided to play chess and to abide by the rules, he/she would not be deprived of free will within the constraints of the rules of the game.

Are you a man or a mouse?

Hans

[Franko]

MRC,

okay ... in Your mind you have "free will". Congradulations.

I disagree, but since you refuse to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim our discussion seems to be at an end.

[hammegk]

quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

hammegk:

The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

And on your discourse of algorithmic & rule-based computing machines, do you deny that both can be replaced by a Turing machine?

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:
MRC,

okay ... in Your mind you have "free will". Congradulations.

I disagree, but since you refuse to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claim our discussion seems to be at an end.

A assume this means that you cannot refute the evidence I just gave. You are shot down, but as I predicted, you still pretend to be flying. You are getting pathetic.

How about your little contradiction, do we also pretend THAT doesnt exist?


Hammekg
The fact that *you*, or anyone else cannot predict something does not necessarily mean it is not completely deterministic.

Obviously not, but I think you must provide at least some evidence. My point is that an unbreakable rule-set does not preclude free will. Can you challenge that?

Hans

[Franko]

MRC_Handjob,

A assume this means that you cannot refute the evidence I just gave.

What evidence? this is all you said:

MRC: your free will argument is shot.

You making an unfounded and self-serving assertions is NOT evidence where I come from, but I am sure that is sufficient in your A-Theist never-never-land.

You are shot down …

Another unsupported claim – have you convinced yourself that I am just a figment of your imagination yet?

… but as I predicted, you still pretend to be flying. You are getting pathetic.

What’s pathetic is your insistence that you possess “free will” while utterly failing to provide ANY evidence for your claim. Do you think that ANYONE reading along is stupid enough to fall for your pathetic unsupported claims? Even John Edwards is about a million times more convincing than you.

How about your little contradiction, do we also pretend THAT doesnt exist?

What contradiction? Is it a secret?

If there is a contradiction mention it specifically. Other than idiot A-Theists who is fooled by such nonsense and religious fanaticism?

[chulbert]

Franko,

Would you be so kind as to define 'free will' for me? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have free will. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism.

[Franko]

Chulbert,

Would you be so kind as to define “god” for my Christian and Hindu friends? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you do NOT obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have God. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism, or a simple asserting of the statement as FACT with nothing to back it up.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by chulbert
Franko,

Would you be so kind as to define 'free will' for me? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have free will. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism.

Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,

Would you be so kind as to define “god” for my Christian and Hindu friends? While you're at it, explain why it cannot exist in your 'you do NOT obey tlop' view of the universe.

You're the one claiming we don't have God. Your proof, so to speak, must be more than a logically flawed (not necessarily factually) syllogism, or a simple asserting of the statement as FACT with nothing to back it up.

I didn't think you could. Thanks!

[Franko]

chulbert,

So just for the record ...

I guess that is proof that your "free will" (A-Theist God) is more real then the Christian's God, or the Hindu Gods?

That is what you are claiming correct?

define my terms for me ... then prove the negative?

You A-Theists really aren't that bright.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko
Chulbert,


You're the one claiming we don't have God.

Franko this Is the heart of the whole mess that passes for debate on this topic. Your basic desire is to attempt to reverse the onus of proof. Who's imaginary friend are we talking about here?. Last I knew It was your goddess, not anyone elses. You blatantly refuse to show any spine. You manufacture a straw deity (tlop) and try to nail it to your opponents. Its just fog and mirrors being used to disguise the fact that you have nothing to offer in support of the existance or YOUR goddess....... You are the proposer, you have the onus of proof.

Let it go Franko, you are free to believe anything you wish. If you claim you can prove your beliefs then bring it on.... I don't see how demanding others disprove the existance of your strawman deity (tlop) helps you support the existance of your goddess....

[ImpyTimpy]

I have to admit, playing with Franko is quiet entertaining :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool


Franko ...... You are the proposer, you have the onus of proof.



Fool, try this thought. Are the majority of posters here materialists?

The strong atheists, and materialists, are also here in fair numbers. Franco basically offers a scenario of Goddess & Graviton (and filler of all god-of-gaps positions)in opposition to the materialists=atheists (MAs).

You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis, with the MAs getting a free ride; basically "we are scientists, we are smart, and there are more of us than you so we are right".

The most logical (imo) debater for MAs is Stimpy, and he even agrees he leaves himself the out of agnosticism. Other MA views tend to become vitriolic diatribes more often than not.

Agreed, I'm another majority of one here, and as such suspect, but imo, MAs offer no more PROOF than does Franco. Hmmmmm?

Originally posted by hammegk
You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis, with the MAs getting a free ride; basically "we are scientists, we are smart, and there are more of us than you so we are right".

The most logical (imo) debater for MAs is Stimpy, and he even agrees he leaves himself the out of agnosticism. Other MA views tend to become vitriolic diatribes more often than not.

Agreed, I'm another majority of one here, and as such suspect, but imo, MAs offer no more PROOF than does Franco. Hmmmmm?

Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is no pink dragon in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors.

Cheers,

You two gentlemen in the back. Stimpy? Victor? Please stop giggling so we can continue with our program. And you, in the front, whitefork, please stop shuffling pages in your book on logical fallacies.

Cheers,

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage?
Cheers,
I have none. IF you think you have one, perhaps you're drinking sterno again? Or perhaps you should be careful what you propose. Doesn't the current math imply if it is not prohibited, it MUST occur?

Does the IPU argument actually appeal to you? It would not surprise me if you feel this to be a good argument for materialism=atheism, rather than a feeble attempt at raw deception/misdirection.

Stimpy can giggle if he wishes. Victor will more likely swear. I promise to pay a bit more attention to whitefork; maybe he offers value-added.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


You seem to feel he must PROVE his hypothesis,?

well....yes, I do. If he says...."here's a hypothesis and its provable". Who else do you feel has the onus of proof of Franko's hypothesis?

My own Hypothesis is that I don't have any hypothesis on gods. I can't prove or disprove anything until a hypothesis exists. I don't care if Franko creates a strawman hypothesis (tlop) and rants that I cannot disprove it...... I don't care, I cannot disprove the pink unicorn either..... I refuse to play that game. The game is "hands up all those that can demonstrate the existance of a god" If you've got your hand in the air the onus is on you to put up or shut up. I have not got my hand in the air. Not even for the gods franko so kindly builds and tries to forcefeed me (tlop).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by The Fool

Not even for the gods franko so kindly builds and tries to forcefeed me (tlop).

I must have missed the "force-feed" part. I will lose no sleep over what you Believe or Dis-Believe.

Do you think Franco cares? Could be I suppose ... but I'd say "unlikely" ... ;)


Dear Bill
I checked the last weeks' posts from whitefork. Is there something specific of his you could direct my attention to? Thanks in advance. hammy

[The Fool]

Originally posted by hammegk


I must have missed the "force-feed" part. I will lose no sleep over what you Believe or Dis-Believe.

Do you think Franco cares? Could be I suppose ... but I'd say "unlikely" ... ;)



So now we have established that everyone cares nothing about what other people believe, who has their hand up to the "who can demonstrate the existence of a god" question?

I'm not raising my hand.
Are you putting your hand up Hammy? is Franko?

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Franko wanted to prove that humans have no free will using faulty logic. Now it seems to me the followers of the original fallacy are trying to shift the burden of proof because it all got too hot for them?

[Franko]

Billy-buoy,

Where is your proof there is no pink dragon in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is no pink dragon in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors.

Where is your proof there is “free will” in my garage? You have offered no more proof than I that one is there! Just because you are in the majority! No! No! No! It is you who must offer the proof there is “free will” in my garage. It is not I who must provide the pictures.

We'll continue when the audience laughter settles down. Meanwhile, this announcement from one of our sponsors … :rolleyes:

[Franko]

So now we have established that everyone cares nothing about what other people believe, who has their hand up to the "who can demonstrate the existence of a god" question?

I'm not raising my hand.
Are you putting your hand up Hammy? is Franko?

Sure as hell isn’t me, Fool.

… unless you consider yourself “God”? … I mean, after all … we are all just figments of your imagination. That unified physics equation that “Hawking talks” (wink, wink) about? You already know it … its inside your subconscious mind – this very moment. It’s generating this “universe” all around you. I am not even real.

[Franko]

Impydinky,

I don't see what the fuss is about. Franko wanted to prove that humans have no free will using faulty logic. Now it seems to me the followers of the original fallacy are trying to shift the burden of proof because it all got too hot for them?

Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

It is a real simple question. If you are asserting “free will” exist, then it is NO different then asserting that “God”, or “an afterlife” exist. You claim it – you prove it. The burden is on YOU – not ME. You A-Theists don’t know squat about Logic.

… of course if you are NOT claiming the existence of “free will”, then lets talk about your Car …

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Franko
Impydinky,
Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

I'm not claiming anything...

It is a real simple question. If you are asserting “free will” exist, then it is NO different then asserting that “God”, or “an afterlife” exist. You claim it – you prove it.

Once again, *I* am not claiming anything...

The burden is on YOU – not ME. You A-Theists don’t know squat about Logic.
… of course if you are NOT claiming the existence of “free will”, then lets talk about your Car …

:rolleyes: Franko, I am not claiming ANYTHING. I am not saying free-will exists, I am not saying free-will doesn't exist. I am asking you to prove free-will does not exist as that was your original statement. Further, I am asking you to:

a) Stop using straw arguments
b) Stop using faulty logic
c) Stop trying to evade questions. :D

[Franko]

ImpotentWinky,

I'm not claiming anything...

Well, in that case I am just a figment of your imagination anyway … so … why don’t you run along and find some nice A-Theist to play with. I am here to have discussions with people capable of having opinions.

Once again, *I* am not claiming anything...

Yes, little boy … thank you for sharing … run along … the grown-ups are trying to Talk.

Franko, I am not claiming ANYTHING.

Great! Wonderful! So what else would you like to tell us you are NOT doing? Is there a point you would like to NOT make? If you are claiming a position, then for all I know you agree with my Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.

Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?

I am not saying free-will exists, I am not saying free-will doesn't exist.

I am asking you to prove free-will does not exist as that was your original statement.

I am not saying that free-will exists.

Further, I am asking you to:

a) Stop using straw arguments

I am Not claiming to use strawmans, I am NOT claiming to NOT use strawmans.

What are you NOT claiming?

b) Stop using faulty logic

Actually You and the A-Theists seem to have cornered that market completely.

c) Stop trying to evade questions

hehehe ... I laughed so hard when I read this. I think you are so dense you failed to see the complete and utter irony of it -- Mr. I-am-not-making-any-claims.

Me Evade??? When I am not busy responding to NON-persons like yourself, I don’t exist, I am just a figment of your subconscious imagination. I suggest you run along and enjoy this brief little life while you can. Sooner than you think, you will cease to exist A-Theist.

From now on, if you are tempted to respond to one of my posts, save yourself the trouble …

… as far as you are concerned … I am not making ANY claims. I don’t believe in Nothing, not even me … I don’t even exist …

[ImpyTimpy]

Uhh.. You do realise how contradictory your own sentences are don't you? You said:


I am not making ANY claims.


and also


Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.
Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?
I am not saying that free-will exists.


So perhaps you should follow your own advice?


Originally posted by Franko
ImpotentWinky,
Well, in that case I am just a figment of your imagination anyway … so … why don’t you run along and find some nice A-Theist to play with. I am here to have discussions with people capable of having opinions.
Yes, little boy … thank you for sharing … run along … the grown-ups are trying to Talk.
Great! Wonderful! So what else would you like to tell us you are NOT doing? Is there a point you would like to NOT make? If you are claiming a position, then for all I know you agree with my Non-position, so there is no point in further conversation between us at all.
Why do you follow me around so much and NOT say anything? Do you really believe that I or anyone else here cares about your non-opinions and non-positions? Thanks for Non-sharing. Is there anything else you would like to Non-say before you Non-go?
I am not saying that free-will exists.



I am Not claiming to use strawmans, I am NOT claiming to NOT use strawmans.

What are you NOT claiming?



Actually You and the A-Theists seem to have cornered that market completely.



hehehe ... I laughed so hard when I read this. I think you are so dense you failed to see the complete and utter irony of it -- Mr. I-am-not-making-any-claims.

Me Evade??? When I am not busy responding to NON-persons like yourself, I don’t exist, I am just a figment of your subconscious imagination. I suggest you run along and enjoy this brief little life while you can. Sooner than you think, you will cease to exist A-Theist.

From now on, if you are tempted to respond to one of my posts, save yourself the trouble …

… as far as you are concerned … I am not making ANY claims. I don’t believe in Nothing, not even me … I don’t even exist …

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Franko

Are you claiming “free will” exist – YES or NO?

I might claim one way or the other if I knew what your definition of free will is. I asked you earlier and you panicked, throwing an off-topic question back at me.

So tell me, what is free will? Answer this and I'll be more than happy to tell you whether or not I think your version of exists.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Franko
btw -- Wraith ...

I forgot to congradulate you on your successful mission. I'll contact you later, behind you know who's back, as we say ...

:cool:

....I luv your style!

:)

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wraith:


The point is: You DO have the complete information. You have all information about the present state of the game, and you have all information about the rules governing the next move. You can even calculate the ultimately best next move. But you STILL cannot predict which of the POSSIBLE moves the player will choose.

If I had the information that told me that your next move would be based on your maximum perceived benefit ie. the move that would give you the most advantageous position (assuming that youre trying to win the game), and I knew that you knew what that move was, I would know exactly what your move will be.

does 2 + 2 = 4 to you?

About the difference between algorithmic and rule-based systems. I just explained the difference. If you dont understand it, get somebody to explain it to you. Ask Franko, he's a programmer, he ought to know. Or you can ignore it, or deny it, I dont seriously care.

I understand what youre saying and I know where your error lies.

Franko is a hardcore Fatalist by the way

:)

[MRC_Hans]

Franko:
What contradiction? Is it a secret?

If there is a contradiction mention it specifically. Other than idiot A-Theists who is fooled by such nonsense and religious fanaticism?


Ohhh, you have "forgotten"? How utterly sad! So young and your memory already fails you. Let me help you:

You have said that "Ultimately each man is responsible for his actions".

You have proved (using a generic computer language) that without free will there is no responsibility.

You have stated that you do not believe humans have free will.

At least one of those statements must be wrong. Which one?

And dont say you have not said those things, its on record.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

And Wraith:
If I had the information that told me that your next move would be based on your maximum perceived benefit ie. the move that would give you the most advantageous position (assuming that youre trying to win the game), and I knew that you knew what that move was, I would know exactly what your move will be.

No. You would know which move I would probably make, but you could not be shure. I might choose another, in order to throw my opponent off balance, in order to try something new, or for some quite irrational reason. The point is, the rule-driven system does not preclude free will.

I understand what youre saying and I know where your error lies. (on the difference between alorithmic and rule-driven)

Yawn! Then do enlighten me.

Hans

[wraith]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
No. You would know which move I would probably make, but you could not be shure.

hence me saying "if I had the complete information."


I might choose another, in order to throw my opponent off balance, in order to try something new

What would be the point of trying something new? Would this give you a more advantageous position? If your objective was to win the game, then all your moves would be based on what you perceive as the best move to make to win the game. If you wanted to try something new to put off balance your apponent but you know of an even better move, why wo