Your evidences has no significance value.
But it does. Who are you to determine value anws?
Even the author of the article don't make such bold allegations as you do.
There is no need for him to make. You are the one making the allegation that free will exists. Again, you are intellectually dishonest since you provide no evidence for it.
Other parts of your article is blah blah blah based on nothing.
not an argument.
Arguments as evidence? You've surpassed yourself))) While in science world we are looking for the evidences to support the argument you are presenting arguments as evidences. You're dilettante and you have proven it once more.
I did provide both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence. You provided zero. (other than significant amounts of butthurt like in the previous post)
Article about pedophiles has nothing to do with the free will. Don't confuse inclination and action.
ofcourse it does. It shows how brain physiology can change who you are. A tumor can do it, drugs can do it as well, even a conversation with a special someone can change your future actions.
Yes, it shows how brain physiology can change who you are. So what? Trauma can also turn you into a vegetable. If you have lost a free will*(let us assume it exists) because of trauma or any other physiological changes it doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist at all. Changes means only that you have a deal with new circumstances.
Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
Have you proved that inclination 100% leads to action? Prove it first than we will talk about it. Can your opinion without any support serve as a strong argument? Surely not. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true but your premises are false hence your conclusion is false.
Intellectualy dishonest?))) What an argument)))
Mentioned study only states that we can predict with a 60% probability what button will be pressed. As i have said earlier the results are interesting, still they can not serve as a proof. Let's measure more complex tasks first but before it's done you have no scientific support for your claims. 20 years of thorough study the author said. Your personal interpretation of a particular study can't serve as evidence.
So what do we have here? Unsounded arguments and link to an academic study that doesn't make any claims that can support your conclusions and states the necessity of further research on the matter.
P.s.
Alexis fairly pointed that such kind of topics need more thorough approach. I also think so. Try harder next time or you will always end up with such superficial articles as this.
You are still left with a negative. You need to demonstrate that it exists. Assuming that it does (whether pink flying elephants of free will or god) doesn't cut it. The burden of proof is not on me. I just provided sufficient evidence that it is impossible to exist.
That's not what I mean. Ofcourse we all choose how to act. The point is how that is influenced. How do we know it is ours and not influenced from other things?
There is no need for "thorough" examination. We have a very basic question here. Humans are the product of their environment. Our parents, friends, family, food,. everything contributes to what makes us, us.
The question for someone who believes in free will is simple. How do you know that the actions you choose to take are yours and not influenced by someone else?
You haven't defined the "free will" in your article.
If we will define "free will" as an infinite possibilities not limited by anything than "free will" doesn't exist. Give a definition first and then we can have a serious dispute about that.
If your statement in that actions are influenced by something than you're right. Someone should be an idiot to state the opposite. But influence does not equal determine.
Indeed I haven't. perhaps that was a mistake. Here it is
Definition: Free will is the assumption that human beings can take actions or make decisions independent of environmental stimuli.
It's not a definition. Let me rephrase.
"Free will is the ability of human being to take actions or make decisions independent of environmental stimuli."
Agree?
For me is assumption though. Anws. yes. go on.
Next you should define what is environmental stimuli.
For example,
Environmental stimuli (in cognitive neuroscience) refers to pictures or objects one sees in daily life presented in laboratory experiments to create the feeling of viewing natural images.
We need some consistent basis that won't allow much room for different interpretations.