Proof of nonexistence of free will

Whenever you argue about anything -- in the sense of doubting its existence -- it must become to you just a "way of thinking," or a belief.

When you discuss the idea, you are discussing the phenomenon: there is no other way of discussing any phenomenon, other than discussing an idea that describes it.

The existence of free will is precisely the subject of this thread: its existence is in dispute here, which would be impossible if it had never been "suggested that the concept has being," don't you agree?

Quote:

Whenever you argue about anything -- in the sense of doubting its existence -- it must become to you just a "way of thinking," or a belief.

"Free will" can never, under any circumstance be anything but a way of thinking. It is not an entity, it doen't have any attributes that can be said to exist or not exist.

Quote:

When you discuss the idea, you are discussing the phenomenon: there is no other way of discussing any phenomenon, other than discussing an idea that describes it.

That doesn't mean that your method of choice is correct. If you are prepared to say if free-will exists or not, you are making an assertation that is irrelevant to the concept.

Quote:

The existence of free will is precisely the subject of this thread: its existence is in dispute here, which would be impossible if it had never been "suggested that the concept has being," don't you agree?

No, just because a problem is presented doesn't mean it's a valid problem. Your argument here precludes the eventuality that people may make erroneous associations which they then can expand upon.

One thing is for you to say that you do not believe in free will, and another thing is for you to say that it cannot exist. For the second assertion, you must provide arguments, and you are providing none.

Free will is our capacity to chose our own destiny, or to decide our own actions, which has the possible attributes of being rational or emotional, consistent or inconsistent, wise or stupid, and so on: it has all the possible attributes of any decision.

Belief that some things, even adjectives and words, may be without referent is nonsense, once all that is must have a referent in order to be mentally conceived in the first place.
Concepts draw circles around sets of property's that do exist, or that at least can refer further to yet another set of property´s in the property´s they convey...although sometimes (often) happens, that certain concepts do not refer to sets of property´s that actually can be assembled together beyond conceptual belief, or only by mixing different category´s of phenomenological existence that were not yet observed together as actuality´s...
Thereby it seams logical to assume that mistakes do refer, do exist, and have true value...although its factual value, being not that which they are trying to convey in the implicit meaning they seam to carry within.
Finally and to conclude, that to say that they are empty to they former purpose, must not be to say, that they cannot have any purpose...

if a concept were only to be a sum of property´s in a set hardly could we debate what is to be adequate in its meaning...

nevertheless concepts have background and context to which the meaning they convey its heavily related...

again its the whole of the idea on which concepts are embedded that can give them boundary´s and properly stablish the limits of what they are trying to communicate...

Conceptual mistakes emerge when several category´s of phenomenological manifestations are wrongly assembled together in relation to the meaning that the whole of the idea brings up...

its their functionality according to a specific background that makes them fail or prevail...

Are you saying that a fallible argument cannot exist?

I know as in most issues debated in this forum the formal answer that we can come up with...yet I rather prefer to be criticized hundred times for my informal approaches while trying to bring up a more complete and integrated perspective...

...fair and true that I do not always take the care to expressed them in the more possible clarified manner...

there´s allot of side issues that would take an eternity in order to justify why I do sometimes peak unconventional shortcuts to express my reasoning...

its holistic configuration touches many strings simultaneously, therefore shortcuts become unavoidable if not to write an encyclopaedia every time I express an idea...

...in the case I don´t believe in concepts that exist and not refer to anything given they convey together sets of property´s that are existent and thinkable like...often what happens is that some concepts are not sufficient clarified in the context who brings them an operative functional "enclosement"...

...meaning in concepts that fail the proposed goal/function to a certain specific context is that which makes them fail...

Sure not -- in fact, fallible arguments are much more common than sound ones.

falsehoods must utterly refer to a nonexistent, otherwise they become the truth of whatever they refer to

Cant you really see that without functionality words don´t mean or are anything ?

Concepts are ideas ideas are concepts...true. So true as that there are ideas as sums of other ideas, and thus the change of words in the case intended as function avoiding unnecessary confusion...

objects for instance...they are ultra objects in themselves, they can have a billion functions in a billion different contexts, but what makes them objects its the function to which they are assembled...

What is it that you and some other idiots have against informal explanations ?
...Is it the case that you don´t really get the adjacent meaning conveyed in my reply´s ? Or is it that is not sufficiently exhausted in all the justifications it imply´s ?

Quote:

Sure not -- in fact, fallible arguments are much more common than sound ones.

Yea, that is probably the truth right there.

But I am trying to understand what you mean by this:

Quote:

falsehoods must utterly refer to a nonexistent, otherwise they become the truth of whatever they refer to

Perhaps we should specify the criteria that must be met for something to be said to have existence.

So true as that there are ideas as sums of other ideas, and thus the change of words in the case intended as function avoiding unnecessary confusion

falsehoods must utterly refer to a nonexistent, otherwise they become the truth of whatever they refer to

So true as that there are ideas as sums of other ideas, and thus the change of words in the case intended as function avoiding unnecessary confusion