The illusion of free will

because your post makes no sense that is why:
You posted snip#913:

As a refutation to a claim that there is no need to defy the laws of physics...to be valid. Which is an superb example of your absurd comprehension abilities.
And I have repeatedly pointed this out but you have failed to address your obvious mistake.

Again show me where "defying the laws of physics" is a necessary requirement for my refutation to stand as valid.

[1]The product of the imagination is NOT determined by the laws of physics.

[2] The imagination does not need to defy the laws of physics but renders them irrelevant as per choice.

[3] The criteria that for freewill to be real it must defy the laws of physics has *therefore* been refuted.

[4] There is no need for me to bring in other more complex arguments than the above...

[5] Choices and decisions etc are made with the use of the imagination. A total fiction until "published" into action.

[6] Thus freewill is actual and real and in no way an illusion. [ as defined in this thread ]

There is ample evidence that the product of the imagination is not dependent on the laws of physics and is quite good at making use of them at the whim of the imagine r.


Example of the obvious:

[video=youtube;KSRF3slguhI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSRF3slguhI[/video]

Any ways I think another thread needs to be started and then you can continue your agenda to stay off topic and attack me for you own shortcomings here for as long as you like and for as long as the mods allow you to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You respond with:

and now you ask:

maybe someone else can enlighten you as to your problem with this... I am done with attempting to help you...as I have no reason to ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quantum Quack, there is no problem in what he has said.
He has explained what the colour blue is.

Over the past so many pages Sarkus has tied you in knots of your own making.
You have squirmed, evaded and failed to support anything you have said (maybe you have supported one or two things - as NMSquirrel says, noone is wrong all the time).
Sarkus has stood up to all that you have thrown at him.
Yes, he has given it back.
But he has at least supported his positions.
You do not.
He has provided the (on topic) answers that you have requested.
You then have issue with what he says, but you don't explain what that issue is.
You just look to derail.
And you look for any opportunity to score points.
This is something I thought you were doing 30 or so pages ago.
And you are still doing it.
At the expense of any discussion.

The only one who should worry about moderators here is you.
Good day to you.
Back on ignore you go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the poem is a series of rhetorical questions.. and requires no answer...

 

A new thread has been started here:
Freewill ~ A product of imagination


Post #935 has been reported to the mods...
Any one can attempt to refute a claim. I have no problem with that, but be prepared to have the attempted refutation refuted if demonstrably false or in error. [Especially in the form of context]

 

And the rest of us are just supposed to guess that, are we? And to what end was it posted, if any at all?

 

I guess if you re-read the original post in it's entirety and consider the post context properly, you would be able to work that out for yourself...

 

Oh, I'm sorry, QQ. didn't you realise? Those were rhetorical questions. How silly of you to have answered them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually answering any of your questions is rather silly... yes I agree but would extend it to beyond the rhetorical...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!