One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existance with free will.

Hello again everybody and thank you ZenoCitium for such a logical and straight forward response. Let’s begin: Here is a flow chart of my opponent’s last round argument: 1.) Definitions of rational, predetermined, determinism, free will, omniscient, 2.) Redefines/restates my logical argument 3.) What we can’t see isn’t real? 4.) JVN definition is not compatible with determinism 5.) Zeno’s definition is correct according to the bible 6.) JVN can too predict his own actions Clarification A.) I would like to point out a major misunderstanding in my argument last round. This misunderstanding is Zeno’s claim/misinterpretation which he thinks that I had previously mandated that the ‘me in the story’ who was observing a predetermined universe was in an omniscient state. This was not the intention. When I stated in my first round proof “given enough information, I could theoretically be put in a viewing room which allowed me to watch and anticipate another person’s every-move.” I did not intend for the ‘me in the story’ to be in an omniscient state, that would actually defeat the argument I was trying to make. The point was to show how it is possible to prove to a ‘first person perspective me (human me)’ that the world and universe around me is predetermined. Then to demonstrate that I myself am not determinable in my own world B.) Thus I would like to ask the readers to discard Zeno’s interpretation of the logical proof and instead heed this one: 1.) Everything in the universe is calculable and thus ‘predetermined’ 2.) As a human individual I could theoretically be put in a position demonstrating the calculable nature of other people and things 3.) As a human individual I could never be put into a position demonstrating my own calculability, this would bare a paradox 4.) Thus from my perspective I am the only individual with free will C.) I also disagree and do not accept Zeno’s definition of free will. My definition is the common definition and it goes as follows: Free will- The action of choosing from a set of options (option x, y, z….ect) and not being restricted to any one option. My definition does indeed fit determinism being that it simply states that on a omniscient view, given every single person’s perspective people simultaneously do and do not have free will, that given a third person detached view point, that nobody has free will and that in the first person only the individual has free will. This view point posits that people do objectively have free will, more importantly it does so in the only important perspective, the omniscient, the objective one. D.) In order to support Zeno’s claim on free will he uses the bible however I would like to state that we should refrain from using Christian doctrine to prove this point being that it is not fully established to what extent god is real in the first place, even being that he is, There are multifarious interpretations which would only confuse the matter. Thus perhaps we should use other logical examples… E.) Finally I would like to clarify how exactly it is paradoxical to see your own actions. This is simply because if you were to predict your own action, you would have to see yourself predicting your action, predicting your action, predicting your action, predicting your action add infintium. Thus you would never reach your actual next move. Consciousness is live and thus you would be actively changing your next move by trying to predict it. Appeal to ignorance and more If I can’t experience it, it isn’t real. That is what ZenoCitum posits my claim is. This is very close, however the slightest misunderstanding has corrupted and invalidated the entire interpretation of what I actually meant. Here is Zeno’s verbatim claim: “since we cannot observe the free will of other agents we cannot rationally support the claim that they are free to choose their actions.” This is my argument, so he posits. In reality however, the meaning may seem complex, but it is key to this debate, so I will explain as best I can. If you examine the True definition of free will, it is most accurately described as an experience and an action, rather than just an action. This makes sense does it not? If a simple action constitutes free will, then a computer has free will. This being said it must be posited that the experience of deciding between options is truly free will. One can only experience themselves having free will, and by contrast can confirm the reality that others do not have free will, as can be obviously seen in the observer’s reality. Keep this is in mind, because it is key. A main idea here is perspective, there are 3 perspectives that I will focus on. 1st person, 3rd person detached, and 3rd person omniscient. These 3 perspectives are the segments which constitute conscious reality. The claim to an appeal to ignorance come in when I state that I can confirm another’s free will is nonexistent in my world simply because I experience them not having free will, and thus as Zeno said, saying that because I cant see it, it dosent exist. The reality however is that another person’s actions are determined in their own 1st person perspective, not in my 1st person perspective. The other person cannot do his experiencing in my person reality. He can only do it in his 1st person and of course in the omniscient perspective person (because only that perspective takes into account his consciousness)…..Here is a consistent problem I run into when I explain this argument. People trying to disprove the argument by making truth claims in the objective realm, the third person omniscient instead of where they should be, the 1st person. When Zeno said that I claimed free will doesn’t exist because I don’t experience it, he is making a truth claim in the 3rd person omniscient instead of the 1st person perspective. He is saying that I have posited free will as completely nonexistent in AT ALL, EVER in the omniscient perspective. When in fact it is simply saying that another person’s consciousness doesn’t exist within my own consciousness. Pffffff, this is a lot to take on at a given time, but I have a good analogy which demonstrates my point about perspective. The law of non-contradiction states that ‘A thing/action cannot be and simultaneously ‘not be’, in the same instance. For instance, if someone asked my if a table had black paint on it, there is only one correct answer, the table does not both have and not have black paint on it, for this would be impossible. However this law isn’t concrete, it all depends on perspective. The following statement may at first seem illogical: “It is both day and night”. So, of course it seems intuitive that it is either day or it is night, however this is from the 1st person perspective, from your on-earth view of the world…however, what if you were on the International Space Station? Couldn’t you then confirm that it is indeed both day AND night? This clearly shows how from the 3rd person omniscient (and detached) it is both day and night and no logical contradiction was made. My argument is the exact same as this. From the 1st person perspective only I have free will, from the third person detached no one has free will, and from the third person omniscient everyone has free will And no one has free will, because omniscient takes into account every single perspective available. I have tried my best to articulate my point, and even though It turned into one block of text I think everyone should at least slightly understand my point a little better.Citationshttp://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.trinity.edu...http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk...; Thank you for reading. -JVN