Talk:Not Circular Reasoning

Nice one. 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Free will
Should be more stuff about how there is no scientific consensus that "...we are just machines and that our thoughts are really motions of atoms in our brains, which are just ‘computers made of meat’. " Straw man. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do scientists say our thoughts are, other than motions of atoms in the brain? 17:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's loads of stuff mostly but not exclusively around quantum mechanics. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah; the old "at the quantum level everything is totally random" business. But is that really comparable to Sarfati's idea of material vs. spiritual sources for thought? 18:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing to do with quantum effects. Schroedinger did postulate it, but there's no evidence to back it up. If anything, it's emergence, which says we're more than just the motions of atoms in our brains (while at the same time we just are motions of atoms in our brains). 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't that still deny free will? The stuff that I've read is more about collapsing wave functions and the like enabling our minds to make free will choices and arguing against determinism. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say the same thing, that any nondeterminism on the atomic level does not translate to human free will. 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you might. But the point here is that there is much scientific rejection of determinism and that scientists don't simply claim that our brains are "computers made of meat" and have no free-will, as Sarfarti states. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

flowers
So the total predictability of a woman liking flowers gives her free will, as opposed to just triggering a mental algorythym? Someone see a BIG contradiction here?

I have long curled hair, and a lot of women like that. Is this because women have the free will to overwhelmingly make the same decision, or is it simply because women (and men) are programmed to like long clean hair because it's a sign of health, ergo a selection factor for evolution... 195.130.159.242 (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It IS circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis, etc.
The simple savages who wrote the New Testament HAD ACCESS TO the Old Testament when they wrote it. So of course Matthew "proves" Genesis, because he had Genesis in front of him when he wrote his "inspired gospel" nonsense. 5.64.54.208 (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it circular reasoning
... or is it water going down the plughole? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)