Elements of Style in English
in [Lisp]
|
From: Cor on 17 May 2010 12:38 Some entity, AKA Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com>, wrote this mindboggling stuff: (selectively-snipped-or-not-p) > On 2010-05-17 06:50:47 -0400, Pascal J. Bourguignon said: > >> Actually, free will is defined with respect to God. > > Not so, although those who believe in god have certainly thought in > these terms. Free will is unconstrained choice, whether that > constraint be the flying spaghetti monster ^H^H^H^H god, the laws of > physics, or astrological influence. Eh, you really forgot to mention the knuckle dragging troglodyte with a bigger club and mothers-in-law just to mention two entities with the 'power' to stomp it. Cor -- Join us and live in peace or face obliteration If you hate to see my gun consider a non criminal line of work I never threathen but merely state the consequences of your choice Geavanceerde politieke correctheid is niet te onderscheiden van sarcasme
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 14:35 On 2010-05-16 18:27:36 -0400, His kennyness said: > Is there an inverse law associating the difficulty of a research area > with the intelligence of the researcher? Funny you should mention it; turns out there is precisely such an inverse law associating faux titles of nobility with intelligence, your kennyness. ;^) warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 14:40 On 2010-05-17 11:27:45 -0400, Bob Felts said: > If you're > going to posit thought absent physical constraints, what are you > suggesting? What doesn't obey the laws of nature? Ask someone who actually believes in free will (I don't). I think that once you believe in science and see the neuroscientific evidence, you have to admit that human thought and what subjectively feels like free will choice is as physically constrained/determined as any other process. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 14:40 On 2010-05-17 11:16:02 -0400, Tamas K Papp said: > On Mon, 17 May 2010 11:03:37 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: >> Free will is unconstrained choice, whether that constraint >> be the flying spaghetti monster ^H^H^H^H god, the laws of physics, or >> astrological influence. > > So if you are told to pick (x,y) such that x^2+y^2<=1, the fact that > you can't pick (9,42) tells you that there is no free will? Amazing. > I expected the question to be more difficult to decide. You're confused. Unconstrained choice means unconstrained choice from among real alternatives, not the ability to conjure the impossible merely by wishing. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Nicolas Neuss on 17 May 2010 15:11
Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> writes: > Ask someone who actually believes in free will (I don't). I don't think that there is a single person on this planet believing what you think to be "free will" (please feel free to prove me wrong by naming someone who stands behind it [*]). So discussion does not make much sense. Nicolas [*] Repeating your definition: "Free will is unconstrained choice, whether that constraint be god, the laws of physics, or astrological influence." |