Proof of nonexistence of free will

To my view there is nothing internal to anything that it is not brought up by the entirety, the history, the process, and context who gives it form and function. Hard Determinism is also about that...

Its factual that most of the members in this forum seam utterly limited in their compartmentalised reasoning upon most things...

If I were to express to the full what I think in each paragraph and adjective they peak, oh well, I would be voted down in mass...

The worst kind are those who actually have some skills and knowledge that even are capable of clarity in many aspects, and that ultimately fail when to enclose long shot associations...

I wish they could see how ridicule they are in their self confidence full of formal fallacy and simplicity...

don´t worry you don´t get to that group you are far behind...

guigus

You are the one who is claiming that the concept of existence has relevance to this discussion, so the burden of validating that claim falls on you.

If you make statements like...

Quote:

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

...you need to have a clear definition of a "nonexistent".

If you share your definition with me I might be able to understand better what you mean by this statement, because as it is now it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Would you say unicorns exist?

Yes Spendius did get the intended meaning in that sentence Cyr...

A nonexistent is whatever does not exist, that is, whatever is nothing. Yet still, was this definition really necessary?

Quote:

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

I understand it Cyr. He's talking about primary texts spawning secondary commentary which is seen as primary text on the next lowest rung and so on and so on until you get to the man in the street. Words change their meanings in the process. Like the "Burning Bush". At the level of the man in the street such words are easy to distance oneself one and even scoff at.

Quote:

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.

I am not saying that it cannot exist. I am saying that speaking of existence in connection with "free will" is a category mistake.

There is no question wether or not the concept exists. We have knowledge of it, and that is evidence enough that there is such a concept. But that does not establish the validity of the concept, which is what this discussion is really about.

Quote:

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.

Are you saying that it is meaningful to discuss the existence of adjectives?

That's preposterous.

They exist.

However, if they are sufficient to describe what they seek to describe is the real issue.

You are confusing "having existence" with "having truth value". But they are two different things, the latter having relevance to the concept of free will, while the former does not.

Quote:

A nonexistent is whatever does not exist, that is, whatever is nothing. Yet still, was this definition really necessary?

This is not a definition, it is nonsense. Nothing is nothing. If you can relate to it, it is something. That which is "nonexistent" cannot be percieved, thought about or referred to in any way.

"Existence" refers to physical reality.

When you say that unicorns do not exist, what that means it that there is no physical representation of the concept of unicorn.

But you cannot say that the concept unicorn does not exist. That's absurd, because if it was nonexistent you could not have any knowledge of it.

So if something does not exist it simply means that it has no direct relevance to the physical world.

This only applies to objects. An idea cannot be said to be nonexistent unless no one has thought about it.

Thus the concept of free will is not nonexistent.

It is not subject to the question of existence.

It is only subject to the question of meaning.

But as I said, meaningless is not the same as nonexistent.

And at the other end, existent isn't the same as meaningful.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

But as I said, meaningless is not the same as nonexistent.

Bravo!

As possibilities, they are still physical entities, despite only possible ones.

Quote:

As possibilities, they are still physical entities, despite only possible ones.

This is nonsense, serving only to increase confusion by not calling a spade a spade. To add to the confusion to hide incomprehension is a fruitless rethorical practice, particularly in this setting where we are not competing for power or supremacy.

Quote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

But as I said, meaningless is not the same as nonexistent.

Bravo!

Bravo? You are the one mixing up these words, not I.

Btw, in case you missed it, I submitted a reply between your first and second reply to my last post.

Take, for example, a duck: an only possible duck does not cease to be a duck for being only possible. That's what you call a concept.

Well that´s a fair demand, I will try to improve my writing in order to prevent unnecessary friction.