You have no conception of freewill.

And if you do, at least claim you do, I will show to you for what reasons it is an incorrect conception.
And in the end the reasons for which I know that we do not have any.


A conception, is basically a complete understanding of a concept/object and hence a complete knowledge of how it works. And I would suggest everyone who acts like they know what freewill is Viz. those who attempt to assert it's factuality IE it's 'actual' existence to stop. For how can you claim it exists if you cannot even prove it does. Ridiculous, I am disgusted by this forum. But then again it isn't a philosophy forum, just a science forum.

By the way this is basically me challenging almost the entire forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah whats the challenge again ? There is lots of us here that know you have no free will . I personally can tell by your post that you don't .
Whats de matta wid dis forum ? We got smokers,drinkers and philosophers. You could say it is an equal opportunity S.F.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, really??? How do you expect to hold up to intelligent people since you've already shot yourself in the foot right at the start? I'm talking about YOUR false idea of "concept" and suggest you spend some time with an ordinary dictionary before you post again. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You obviously have no conception of conception that is why you are confusing it with understanding. And I can't have a false idea of a concept, because I am in a way, based on your argument, creating one. You don't even know what your argument is, it's pathetic. But let me go on to point out that I am not really creating a concept. As I said a conception is a complete understanding of an object/concept. And he went on to tell me that this is a wrong idea of concept. Which is saying that when you attempt to think of a concept you don't think of the entire concept Viz. you don't understand the entire thing. Viz that you understand a concept without knowing all the parts the make up the concept. What an absolute fool. If you my friend think you have a conception of a concept when you don't even understand the entire object then you are an imbecile. But let me enlighten you and tell you what you have when you don't understand the entire concept... an incomplete conception of the concept.

Disgusted absolutely disgusted. You guys are failing at the very beginning.

And I didn't respond to the other retarded post because no value could come from showing his errors.

Next.

 

I think you have no conception of the conception of conception.

 

I see what you mean . I didn't think through his idea of what conception was or his imaginary connotations he put on the word . Good work there ! Blow holes cause we like to shoot !! Blam !

 

I don't think you even know what you said.

You guys are really disappointing me.

Next.

 

I don't get it ? You can have a conception of something with out knowing all the workings of something . You don't have to totally understand to conceptualize . In fact conceptualizing is what I would say is a step to understand something . Like an athlete visualizing them selves winning before they win. They will conceptualize the possibility that they will win.

I think used it right ? I am going to make sure . Google Goo the Google

 

I think you have no conception of a joke.

What do you think disappointment cat?

Spoiler

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And that is TOTALLY incorrect - are you so worthless and lazy to the point that you won't even bother to check the CORRECT definition in an ordinary dictionary???

Yes, I have no doubt we disappoint you - foolish people never like to see their errors pointed out. And from MY side, you go far beyond just disappointing me, actually over the top of being downright disgusting. Ugh!!:bugeye:

 

No you can't. I have implied what you couldn't infer which is "a conception is the end point of understanding a concept... and you reach this endpoint by conceptualizing. That is to say my ignorant friend that the end of conceptualizing a concept is a complete conception"


Whenever I say I have a conception I am really just saying I think I know it all and nothing has proven me otherwise. It's kind of like saying "I know something exists even though I don't know entirely for sures"

Next

 

What's funny is you are making all these claims and having all these feelings but you don't even prove or explain why you have those claims. I've made several conclusions and gave several facts, all of which have been repudiated. You must refute these my friend before you go on jumping like a jackass saying that I am wrong. And what's funny is I have long been finding some of you disgusting.

 

Have you ever conceptualized the concept of using commas?

 

O.K. this must be the modern version of metaphysical thought on the subject of concept . Woo Woo a choo choo

 

So then, what is your purpose in coming here?

Oh, a pissing match. Whatever.
I'm not going to engage you on your own attempt to stroke your ego.

There's a fine tradition of arrogance in Western philosophy, and I'm fine with it remaining away from me.

 

I'm tired of the error you guys are making so let me put an end to them.

If you study logic you learn that it concerns itself with concepts. The word concept comes from obviously the prefix co, which means with. And cept means to take. To conceptualize is the taking and bringing together two other things. In logic this is called synthesis. So when you are conceptualizing a concept you are bringing together those concepts which compose the concept the you trying to conceive Viz you have an incomplete conception of the concept. All concepts are preexisting. That is to say when you are conceptualizing a concept really you are trying to put together or synthesize all of that which already composes the concept.

So a concept is preexisting. So when you say you can understand a concept by not knowing it all (That is what you are saying when you say you can have a conception without knowing all of the concept) you are contradicting yourself. You do not know the concept. I can show you with basic set theory. But I won't draw it out for ya.

Americas government consists of 3 branches. The judicial, the executive and the legislative. You mean to say you can have a conception IE you can understand the concept of Americas government IE you know the concepts that make up it (Americas government, just in case you are still following me) even if you don't know that the judicial branch composes this concept? You can't. Because it's not a conception. And I have here proven you have a conception of conception. But I doubt you even understand all this.

Next

 

Do me one favor though:

Explain your definition of free will precisely.

 

Chimpkin, you are an idiot. Let me tell you what else I'm claiming... a complete conception of freewill is impossible. And I will explain how. But I do know... that of what composes the concept of freewill, is this "that a decision could have been otherwise of the complete accord of the entity and therefore without any influence other than it's own will"

 

No go ahead !! Show us by set theory . This should be interesting . O.K. I kind of understand were your going . You would do good to check out the argument on the the free will threads that already exist on this forum . You might be surprised what you find . Friends indeed ! And then you might not be so disappointed but rather you might feel cheated cause the conception of what you speak has already existed

 

Ahhh...summer...the season of teen trolls.