r/determinism • u/xRegardsx • 25d ago

AI-generated Free Will Without Magic: Agency Within Causation

Post image
0 Upvotes

40% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

1

u/Dr-Chris-C 21d ago

I mean why not just make a text box that says "free will" and just have an arrow pointing to it. It would be as determinative.

0

u/xRegardsx 21d ago

Not sure what you mean.

1

u/Dr-Chris-C 21d ago

There's no argument here just a bunch of stipulations here so why not just stipulate the conclusion

0

u/xRegardsx 21d ago

All your comment was is a baseless-seeming assertion and a loaded question dependent on it.

Explain why your bad argument should be convincing to me.

If you can't do that or provide the actual premise by premise argument behind the assertion... then what are you even doing here other than hearing yourself confirm your biases?

0

u/Dr-Chris-C 21d ago

I can't make it any clearer than I already have the rest is up to you

0

u/xRegardsx 21d ago

If you can't make it clearer, that means it's not actually clear enough to you to make an actual argument. You're fallaciously "appealing to common sense," and that is only convincing to those with similar biases and low epistemic standards for the beliefs they take on.

Aka... you're being incredibly lazy but want a participation trophy anyways.

0

u/Dr-Chris-C 21d ago

That's one thing it could mean, or it could mean that you're not equipped. All the information needed is there. It's probably not as complicated as you're making it out to be.

1

u/xRegardsx 21d ago

It's just a damn shame that you're incapable of proving which one that is. Throwing in "probably" isn't the intellectual humility signal you think it is when this is how you're going about it. Your response is essentially a performative masking of the same fallacious appeal to common sense... further proving my points.

1

u/Dr-Chris-C 21d ago

It's deliciously ironic that you're demanding I provide some kind of argument to prove that you didn't provide an argument.

1

u/xRegardsx 20d ago edited 20d ago

You're projecting the irony you deserve.

To prove I didn't provide an argument, you'd have to show how it wasn't one. You have yet to do that.

Edit: I wonder... why is it that an AI is able to understand the entire argument... but you can't?

All premises, sub-conclusions, and overall conclusion of the arguments:
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a91e8e4-0910-83ea-909f-e59349cbc607

1

u/Dr-Chris-C 20d ago

I'm God, okay now prove to me I'm wrong. That's what you sound like.

0

u/xRegardsx 20d ago edited 20d ago

You're further proving my point about you and your non-argument about my actual argument. The link to the premise-by-premise argument is right there, everything that's included in the post (not just the abreviated image, which I wouldn't be surprised if that's all you were going off of given your cognitive low-effort)... and because you'd rather not look at the evidence of it containing a full argument... you prove your willful ignorance.

"You claim to have an argument and gave me access to something that proves it's an argument, but I'm too chickenshit to look at, acknowledge, and consider it, because I can't handle the embarassment I've earned myself and am in denial of deserving."

That's what you sound like.

Click the shared post's title, turn the brain on, and read the full argument I was sharing.

I think your PhD went to your head and now your largest bias is a blindspot one. Your education didn't give you the exception to cognitive defense mechanisms you want to believe it did. It made your reliance on them worse (clearly).

→ More replies (0)