Bartricks

No, we hold people morally responsible because our reason represents them to be.

And you always will exist too. They have that implication too. And I suppose some may find that somewhat frightening. We all exist and always will and...

Although having said that, no, a spirit of life did not evolve. I am not entirely sure what you mean by a spirit of life, but I assume you mean our im...

I am not sure what the wider implications are. But there's no 'should' about it - the arguments I am presenting are all deductively valid, have premis...

No, 2 + 3 = 5 is self-evidently true. Virtually everyone's reason represents it to be true - which is very good evidence that it is. By contrast, 2 + ...

And note, you can't say "my evidence is that our minds are material objects and so everything that they are and that goes on in them is determined by ...

You clearly do not understand how arguments work. Premise 1 and premise 2 entail 3. That is, 3 is necessarily true if 1 and 2 are. You have acknowledg...

No, your approach is wrong. What deprives one of free will in one context may enhance it in another. Its akin to asking when a meal is delicious. Some...

I don't know what you're on about. I don't have a definition of free will. But I know I have it.

Here's a fourth piece of evidence that my mind is an immaterial soul. 1. If everything I think, desire and do is the causal product of prior causes an...

To expand a little on my last point - note that my theory (that my mind is an immaterial soul) is described in the conclusion of my arguments, not any...

I don't offer a definition - you haven't understood my point at all. Free will is free will and not another thing. Sometimes free will involves being ...

Re the rational intuitions that represent procreation to be ethical - well, those, I think, have been induced not by drugs, but by environmental progr...

no, not necessarily. For example, if I am free of information is my will freer as a result?

And you should read Descartes. Then you'd understand him better and wouldn't think he thought your neurology has nothing to do with your decision to g...

So, for instance, let's say we uncover overwhelming evidence that everything we do has been determined by prior causes. Well, it is more reasonable to...

Any case for the anything - including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - will have to appeal to some rational intuitions and thus will presuppose ...

No, you gave an example of an epileptic which did not do anything to challenge the credibility of premise 2, and you talked about qualia - which no pr...

Eh? No, you should have written it in English. Try again.

Gibberish. Maybe translate it into Latin and it'll sound better. But in Engilsh it's gibberish.

You're not helping - I don't need any help, Descartes has got my back. So you don't worry your little cotton socks off about me, just go in for the at...

Maybe read him in English next time, that way you might understand him a little better. Now which premise in his oh so dated argument are you disputin...

What help does my (Descartes') argument need, do you think? Seems to be doing just fine as it is, so far as I can tell. I mean, you've been unable to ...

You sooo haven't read him.

I'll phone up my bank, shall I, and tell them I just removed 10% of my brain, so now I owe them 10% less and we'll see how plausible they find my seco...

What's his memory got to do with it? The post surgery person either owes you $1000 or nothing, yes? Because either it is Ralph, or it is a totally new...

You've never read him, have you?

Does he owe me $500? You seem to have trouble focussing.

Note, if your answer to my question is 'b' then that is also the answer to what you are.

Maybe stop assuming I don't know stuff and just address the argument.

I know. Which premise are you disputing?

Say what you like, it's showing it that's difficult. Tell me, do you think Descartes was a) one of the greatest thinkers of all time, or b) a twit?

Yes, I know that. Now, which premise of MY argument are you challenging and how?

Again, question begging - you're assuming that the mind is the brain AGAIN. Let's imagine that Ralph has severe epilepsy. I've lent Ralph $1000. But n...

Which premise of my argument mentioned qualia? You need to challenge a premise of my argument. I'm talking about THE MIND

Question begging.

This is a reply to your 3. You're now talking about the CONCLUSION of my argument (well, I say 'my' argument - it is actually Descartes'). The conclus...

This is a reply to your 2. I don't understand what you mean. Why are you talking about qualia? I said the MIND is indivisible. This is something our r...

this is a reply to your first point. You're confusing the smallest things scientists need to posit with 'indivisible' things. A common mistake. Take t...

try making an argument.

You've looked some words up. Well done. Now make an argument. it's hard - hard to make a good one. Try.

Make an argument.

The case for antinatalism is going to be cumulative - that is, it is not going to consist of one knock-down argument, but numerous arguments that all ...

No it isn't. You're begging the question because you're just assuming that the mind is a material thing - a brain. Yet what the mind is is the issue u...

Hard, isn't it? Hard to actually argue, much easier to dispense condescending advice and attack personalities.

Present an argument. Your advice is terrible and I don't want it. Now, present an argument for something. Don't express your feelings, don't give me a...

Argument - present an argument.

And Rovelli's point is indefensible. But you wouldn't and couldn't know that.

what you find difficult is addressing proper arguments, but feel free to dress it up in a self-serving way.

No it isn't. You don't know what a straw man is. Stop using terms you don't understand.