You go ahead and start an argument with Rayn right after I said nobody else bothers. Thanks for making a liar out of me ;P (just joking around)
A clean break from the spiral into the shit pile, and I'm feeling a bit more like arguing again.
No, based on my definition, slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely decide things, you have to be free, so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't decide you want freedom. Logically, empirically, and historically that is not the case.
Let's just change that a little so that it's proper, rather than a linguistic and logical disaster:
"slaves, who are not free people, can decide they want freedom. The problem is that you are saying that in order to freely
decide things, you have to be free
(lol duh?), so this implies that if you are a slave, and are not free, then you can't FREELY
decide you want freedom."
There. The addition of one word makes it proper. A slave can still make a decision to want to be free, but it's not a decision made in freedom. It's a decision made in slavery. You're once again conflating all forms of freedom to a singular value and ignoring the all sorts of facets of the concept of freedom.
Akenu, your point has already been discussed in this thread and the point you are speaking of has already been addressed by me via Steve and I's debate.
Don't pull shit like this. He's not arguing with me, and he's not rehashing anything you and I said. Treat his argument for what it's worth and discuss it with him rather than trying to dismiss it with a wave of the hand by saying it's already been said before.
Yes, because I have a consciousness that is not emergent from something intrinsically deterministic where my choices can be modeled in terms of a chaotic and stochastic system. My brain and consciousness are stochastic and dynamical, so this means that what I will decide is not determined. But, the details of this have also been discussed, so for a detailed explanation, you need to go back and read.
That's not freedom. You're using a wrong definition, whereby you're confusing concepts. You think that arguing against Absolute Determinism by stating that there is randomness in the world equates to freedom: it does not. There has always been randomness in the universe, since long before humanity ever existed, and yet humanity has since found a way to enslave one another, and other creatures besides.Chaos/Stochastic/Randomness <> Freedom.
In fact, why don't we go ahead and define freedom since we haven't done that yet:
In it's simplest definition, freedom is a lack of bondage, where numerous different things can bind someone. A more complete definition is more complete.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint:
He won his freedom after a retrial.2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
the power to determine action without restraint.
political or national independence.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery:
a slave who bought his freedom.
exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually followed by from):
freedom from fear.7.
the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.8.
ease or facility of movement or action:
to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
frankness of manner or speech.10.
general exemption or immunity:
freedom from taxation.
the absence of ceremony or reserve.
a liberty taken.
a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation:
freedom to levy taxes.
civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will:
to have the freedom of a friend's library.17.
Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Compare necessity (def 7).
So, several of those definitions are political/social/economic based definitions, and others are very much restriction based definitions. It's a multifaceted concept that does not go away just because of randomness. Of particular importance to demolishing your arguments is number 3. It's not merely the power to decide, but specifically the power to decide without restraints.
Someone pointing a gun at your head and telling you to both "choose freely" and also "but I want you to choose A." isn't a freedom of choice that's generally accepted as freedom by the majority of people, even if it is freedom to get your head filled with holes.
Lock a guy in the stockades and the randomness of his brain functions doesn't make him free.
Freedom to decide is not freedom to act.
Freedom to walk around in a jail cell is not the same as freedom to walk around in a meadow is not the same as freedom to walk to the moon.
Freedom to walk again after someone's had their legs cut or blown off.
Freedom to decide who you want to be, rather than being forced to be whoever your parents want you to be.
Freedom from a molester who's been abusing the victim all their life.
Lots of different freedoms. It's more complicated than a single simple attempt to answer. So that whole "look in the horse's mouth" story: show me the mouth of freedom so we can count how many teeth it has (and as I just said, the randomness of brain function is not it. In fact, I could trump that and go one further by pointing out the superposition of particles, but that doesn't equate to freedom either).