Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild?

The joke is a bit ironic...

Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild? — creativesoul

The proposal is "Free Will exists" and it's not new. With enough tests, the proposal is promoted into theory. What is new are scenarios to test the new theory. :)

I'm not really interested to judge the capacity of other people to recognise pure reasoning...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

The ego of Descartes has been shown to be atop unsturdy premises.

The I that I would refer to would be the ego of Freud, of the personality... Although people have objected to Freud's ego as well.

Although people have objected to Freud's ego as well. — Blue Lux

They certainly have lol :)

Has everything been objected to?

Philosophically I say to myself...

REALLY?!

I believe that you are referring to the joke. It's separated topic and you will find some of my answers there. So, please comment there... — Damir Ibrisimovic

Actually I was addressing the entirety of your post (including the free will stuff). But I will post in this thread since it was more active and it is what you want. :)
You mentioned how "dark matter" was proposed to resolve an issue while not necessarily being in existence. What I was suggesting was that by saying "free will doesn't exist" fails because it already assumed the existence of an intentional agent could be disputed.
A free will denier could say using "propositional attitudes" "all attributions of intentionality" is a social construct or an evolutionary illusion. This is common in constructivism. An eliminativist believes it is a placeholder until something better comes along. That is Churchland's view. Others like Dennett believe intentionality is indispensable as a scientific theory but ultimately (on a raw non-epistemic ontological level) it does not exist and we are just playing pretend.

I need a bit more to agree to disagree or agree on the existence of free will - without qualifiers... — Damir Ibrisimovic

Fwiw, I agree it exists. I am some sort of a dualist but haven't made up my mind on what type. But I want to make the eliminativist arguments known going forward.

To this...

The joke presupposes exactly what is at issue. One cannot give away something they've never had. Poor language use doesn't make a good argument. Talking in terms of giving away free will is talking about giving up on the idea or giving up the belief in free will. — creativesoul

...came this...

The scenarios of the joke are simple enough to test it in a cafe with a friend. Since we can assume that enough people tested the scenarios from 22 May 2011 - we can start to talk about it as a theory — Damir Ibrisimovic

...to which I replied as such...

Who needs a new theory to verify that all sorts of people are incapable of recognizing poor reasoning in the wild?

The joke is a bit ironic... — creativesoul

...and was then a bit astonished at this...

The proposal is "Free Will exists" and it's not new. With enough tests, the proposal is promoted into theory. What is new are scenarios to test the new theory. :)

I'm not really interested to judge the capacity of other people to recognise pure reasoning... — Damir Ibrisimovic

...which seems to miss the point entirely.

A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for.

If someone is talking in terms of "giving up free will", either they are already presupposing that they had it to give, or they are someone who is talking about giving up on the idea/belief/notion called "free will".

Those are two very different kinds of situations. You need people to quote from that are of the first group above. If you quote from someone who is from the second, the joke is nonsensical in that context. The joke doesn't work with someone who knows that there is nothing more to "free will" than being a human conception.

It was originally coined/invented as a means(an attempt) to exonerate the God of Abraham from the existence of evil.

The joke - in order to elicit response(s) confirming the quality - requires an audience that already believes that humans have free will or do not recognize the fallacious nature of the language use, and thus are easily swayed.

Testing that joke - as a purported 'theory' - will show two groups of people; those who recognize it's fallacious, and those who do not. Who needs a theory to show that some people do not recognize fallacious reasoning/thought in the wild(during normal everyday events).

I fail to understand how something being a Complex adaptive system takes it away from being a cause and effect system. The reasoning still seems to stand that if we knew all the components and their interplay, that we could determine (with a certain degree of certainty) the chance of agents acting a particular way. Heck, we don't know close to everything about the mind, sociologically, economics, psychology, et cetera, yet we still notice patterns and use them to predict many forms of behavior. We will only grow in that capacity (predicting) in the future. And even if we never are able to do the above, it won't be proof of our "free will". Whether we actually make choices or have them pre-chosen by the machine, we will still feel like it was the "I" doing it.

which seems to miss the point entirely. — creativesoul

And the point is??? :)

Enjoy, :cool:

A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for. — creativesoul

How precisely, language use determines whether or not Free Will exists? :)

I'm under impression that you are trying to make a point out of thin air...

Enjoy the day, :cool:

quote="creativesoul;206187"]A theory to test whether or not free will exists cannot be built upon language use that already assumes precisely what needs argued for.[/quote]

You are trying to make a point out of thin air...

Enjoy the day, :cool: