3RU7AL

Parler was dropped for inciting violence and violating community standards. This is a huge no-brainer. Amazon should win. 

My main thought on the "problem" of free will is that it doesn't matter. I'm not going to start behaving differently if free will isn't a thing vs. if it is.

Personally, I am of the camp that no such thing can exist. Any process complicated enough to emulate conscious thought must itself be intelligent enough to just be conscious.

If we define free will as the ability of a person (human or otherwise) to act in a way that isn't determined simply by the laws of the universe or "fate," then I would argue that humans do not possess free will.

sentence fragment "a boatload of scientific evidence" that

Parler was dropped for inciting violence and violating community standards. This is a huge no-brainer. Amazon should win. 

Parler was dropped for inciting violence and violating community standards. This is a huge no-brainer. Amazon should win. 

There's Gab.

How do you quantify insects "seeking".

Do you think insects are seeking to reduce cognitive dissonance?

False dichotomies are not problems that need to be solved.

a boatload of scientific evidence

"The very process by which you want to translate qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms."

please explain what point you think this obsession with contradiction makes. 

The proposal that resulted in Fox News was literally titled “a plan for putting the GOP on television”.

Just because it is propaganda that doesn't mean other stations lie less.

I have no idea what this has to do with our conversation.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident, a brute fact.

Your argument that reality is either universally determined or universally random is nonsense,

Xeno’s paradox does not prove that motion is impossible,

The real free will debate is about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we do have these abilities, and we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.

Physical determinism is not logically valid because physical science is an empirical endeavor, not a logically conclusive process and the physical evidence has never justified the assumption of determinism by any stretch of the imagination.

You still need to provide an extraordinary argument supporting your extraordinary claim.

Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state.  Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to the purely physical state of your deterministic argument. 

When we talk about having control over our actions, the only concept we can apply is that which aligns with human experience. Anything beyond that is purely made up.

do you not believe there can be aspects to a truth, or multiple moral truths? I don't think truth has to be black and white, where something is either true or untrue, something can be partly true, partly true without error even, but not the whole truth. It seems to me that two people can have correct assessments of a situation, person or thing, while their perspectives are polar opposites, its only when we synthesise the two do we find a more complete truth. This could arguably go on ad infininitum. Is there a limit to the body of knowledge, and therefore truth? the philosophy you promote seems to think "yes", to that answer. 

please explain the logic of "free-will" ?

at what point are your actions free of previous influence ?

Your actions are free from influence when they are made without being forced or coerced.

If I were to spread a false and dirty rumor about someone,

It seems to me I'd have some responsibility in people 'acting on said rumor?

Might be you have a different point though?

therefore god experiments with them all infinitely

I also like to think of time as not linear, but existing all at once,

Well, I would say what is the "best" move is rather subjective.

Maybe moral arguments such as that work against a Christian or Abrahamic god. Not so much as other hypothetical conceptions. I, for instance, don't believe in good or bad, in the common sense most people seem to. I don't put prescriptions on what God creates as necessarily "better". Its certainly not hypocritical to imagine he does either. What he creates as the best may change infinitely. 

But surely there comes a point 'eventually where a falsehood or incitement is clear cut?

I hope i haven't missed your reasoning as to why God does not have free will. Can you give me your perspective on why you think he couldn't? I probably wouldn't disagree with you on him only being capable of acting on his nature. I would just argue that his nature is infinite by necessity and therefore he has infinite options within his nature. From this free will is performativity and intellectually preserved. 

Take Alex Jones, convinced or goaded people into thinking the school shooting was a false flag, inflammatory,

Led to the parents of dead kids being allegedly harassed, and a dead kid's grave literally pissed on, allegedly.

Where are you guys seeing whether these people have voting privileges or not?