Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  And yet you won't present a nonmaterialist definition of these terms. That certainly guarantees you won't be laughed out of court. |
I think the analogy is with fire - defining fire before you know about chemistry is meaningless and probably misleading. I suspect our knowledge of consciousness/spirit is at an equivalently rudimentary stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos But that's not a flaw in his proof, it's just an opinion on my part. He is presenting a logical proof. Any refutation has to be in the form of flaws in the proof itself. |
Well, if free will doesn't exist, a proof that depends on it goes up in smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos We're arguing about a proof. A logical proof. How many times do I have to repeat this? If he cannot supply definitions of the terms used in his proof, then his proof is meaningless. |
As I say, you probably can't get a watertight proof because of the problem about definitions, which in turn boils down to the fact that you do not accept the normal meaning of 'free will'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos You want to avoid strict definitions of terms yet make assertions about those terms. It just doesn't work.
~~ Paul |
Well, how did the ancients learn about fire (or almost any other phenomenon). They didn't start by requiring impossible (at that stage) definitions, which is exactly my point!
David