Incorrect. You have straw-man'ed me again. I am asking you to justify your argument from authority. You cited the authority. You have not retracted the citation. You literally said "good luck going against this." I took you up on your offer.
I asked you to justify it, and presented evidence suggesting he is not credible. You failed to justify your appeal to authority, then claimed I used ad hominem.
Justify your appeal to authority, stop claiming it is my ad hominem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"if you only accept people based on absolute 100% reputability then you are the one getting the kool-aid of the "infallible" politicians, pop-science stars, academics and so on and so forth."
Another straw-man argument. A dictionary example. I never claimed anything remotely close to this. I asked you to justify your argument from authority. You didn't even try, or give one shread of evidence or reason why anyone should listen to your citation, or why it was as strong as you implied. Now you create a new argument I never made, and destroy it.
Textbook.
I meant the arguments. not the person. geesh.
I didn't make one. I simply demonstrated that he makes good philosophical arguments. Also. I used two more links based on scientific evidence which you seem to ditch quite comfortably. the "satanist" thing works for you :)
I addressed one of your two links. I did not want to gloss over reading the second, so I did not comment on my glance at it. The first link you provided is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Remember, I pointed out it's like the fight or flight response? It's decision making that is borne from an immediate need, and can therefore happen reflexively. That doesn't make it pre-destined, because you still have the opportunity to override the fight or flight type response.
This happens a lot with people freezing in an emergency, instead of either fighting or flighting. They are actually in a state of decision paralysis, ie, determining their "Free will"
I think the second article, and the idea that bacteria could think for you, is basically silly. It's not consistent with brain science, which is what my education is in. As I said, I didn't read it all.
I'm disappointed to see you seem set in your opinions. I don't believe you are discussing this with an open mind. If our positions were reversed, I would already be changing my mind, because your arguments are not logically consistent with themselves and established fact. This is feels over reals stuff. I am actively trying to find something to hold onto to get on board with your position, and cannot. We demonstrably have free-will. This is like self-help, hippie book stuff.
Take a look around the crypto world. What is more popular here, math, or opinions?
You need to catch up on reading then
https://www.livescience.com/49373-google-hangout-on-brain-and-microbiome.html
i actually brought you two scientific articles which you can link to research and you comfortably dismissed. if your neurotransmitters and gut bacteria can control your decisions before you make them then you are fucked. The fact that you sometimes consciously refuse to do so doesn't cut it. It is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the times your gut bacteria changes your for months, even years and you just happen to fall within a specific spectrum of behavior.
We don't but you seem to be in denial for some reason