Also, it is trivial that most of the world is determined. Take a human. You are determined by biology etc to get tired and desire sleep after a period of time, to feel hunger, etc. There's no free will here though the idea "I should sleep/eat" is part of the mind system. In the same way "we should mow the lawn / punish criminals" is part of the mind system. The mind is deciding things though it is not free, strictly speaking.

You're begging the question here.

It's equally consistent w/ libertarianism for the body to have things like cicadian rhythms...but what about the datum that people can, by willpower alone, decide to stay up for 72hrs? Of course, since the matter is empirically underdetermined you could claim that this is consistent w/ determinism.

So, the moral is to just PLEASE stop trying to pull out 'observations' as evidence for your position when the situation is underdetermined.

But the illusion, by definition, does not feel illusory from within. Our only access to its status as illusion is through abstract philosophical reasoning in the topic of metaphysics. I would suggest that even grasping it in this fashion is a tenuous business, and that most of us put the matter aside when returning to less exalted, daily activities.

I really don't see why you're making these statements as though refuting something I said. I have granted all of these points, more or less, except the last one, which sounds wrong on its face.

Anyway, my whole gist is to try to show you why there's something counter-intuitive and self-swallowing about concepts like 'a deep and total illusion' -- especially for those whom it affects.

I don't see how this is different than, effects come from causes.

Maybe I am misreading what you are getting at though. Elaborate (a little bit) please.

Ok but there's no chance I don't **** up since I have no kind of training in philosophy or what have you. Fatalism meaning that the universe from the beginning will play out one and only one way, that alternatives are impossible (as is randomness). If randomness occurs then fatalism is false. I think randomness is part of the universe, etc.

How am I begging the question? You mean saying "it is trivial most of the world is determined"? I guess. It could be true that you freely choose to become sleepy, hungry, feel pain, etc, but I've never really heard anybody take this position (maybe some crazy Buddhists?). Or do you mean something else?

So there's something in this thread which addresses this, if only indirectly. The issue of quantum indeterminacy is present. Some want to include that type of randomness as still being deterministic (perhaps as a non-local variable theory). In fact, the notion of "randomness" is probably not well-defined (or poorly defined if it is defined) and there is a lot of equivocation there. (See Post 174).

I think the heart of the issue is that people want to view quantum effects as both "random" events, but also "deterministic" events, which is an internal conflict of definitions.

As for the other things you've posted, this falls under what I've claimed about madnak's position, as a sort of "weak determinism"(?) which is much closer to basic cause-and-effect. Your sense of "free will" isn't quite consistent with the use here, as being influenced by other factors (looking at your other posts) does not negate free will in any way.

Can I ask you how determinism=fatalism?

Also, does determinism mean that every effect has a cause? I don't think so. If it does mean this then what is the position that free will and determinism are both wrong? Maybe I'm that.

I mean that your argument begs the question = commits a fallacy.

No such position exists.

I haven't tried this yet but your post just made me think of it. I hate it when this happens, this should help

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...984/developers

I get that obviously. What part?

THIS whole thing begs the question.

You already said that. Not helpful.

Hint: I assume you are correct but unless you tell me specifically what the problem is ("you begged the question" isn't) then I'll just be stuck. Imagine you tell a student "you beg the question" and he asks "how" and you say "you begged the question"?

This should help:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

Specifically, you stated your proposition as if it were an argument.

I know how to google. What proposition from my post though? That certain actions are determined (sleep, hunger etc) and not freely willed? Something else? You need to break down my post for me not say "you beg the question" and I say "how" and you say "you begged it" and I say "where?" and you say "here is a link that says what question begging is" ... do you see my problem?

Begging the question is when you assume the truth of the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion. Or, as a premise, when you assume it's truth when, instead, it requires argumentation.

Your interpretation assumes that the cause of the sleepiness is a datum for determinism or that humans are biologically determined (in at least some sense). That's begging the question. That whole post of yours assumes a particular interpretation of the data which is precisely the thing up for debate.

Ok, that's what I figured but is it really controversial to say that sleepiness is caused by our biology? I didn't realize there was raging debate on the manner. If I give you a pill and you begin hallucinating I suppose you cannot logically prove beyond all doubt that this was the cause but it sure seems like a reasonable conclusion to make (i.e. the pill caused your mind to perceive the world in some manner).

You begged the question when you said that it was biologically determined as in no act of free will (if free will exists) could overcome it...I think that such evidence exists that you could choose to overcome it.

Ok you mean something like you can delay sleeping when biology is telling you otherwise and this is an act of free will and not that you can avoid sleeping indefinitely via free will. Or taken to an extreme I shoot you in the knee with a shotgun a person with a strong will could exercise it to be in less pain. I take it that you don't believe I can freely will myself to become taller, levitate, walk on water, etc, or no?

Now you're committing the straw man fallacy.

No, in order to do that I'd have to be making an argument whereas I am just asking questions... i.e. I'm not saying "you believe this" rather "do you believe this" because I'm trying to figure out exactly how far you believe free will extends over our biology or w/e.

"So you believe XXX"? is not a strawman it is a question.

This is clearly a straw man AND adding "or no?" like Glenn Beck does not not make this a statement or an argument. Adding the facetious "or no?" does not make it a question.

Nope. It's a question. That wasn't facetious at all. You are reading intents into my posts that simply are not there. I'm not even attacking or trying to ridicule free will, nor am I a determinist, or anything--I don't have a freakin position. Just asking questions.

Maybe stop being paranoid?

vix I think he means that when you say "I take it that you don't believe I can freely will myself to become taller, levitate, walk on water" you're implying that he has claimed that libertarian free will is responsible for everything that occurs, when he's actually arguing or presenting as arguable that though feeling tired is biologically determined, going to sleep at time X is not.

I could be wrong (I think he's kind of over-reacting even if I am tbh, but whatever).