Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 14:31 On 2010-05-17 11:56:43 -0400, RG said: >> What you are describing, is the *appearance* of free will, both >> outwardly and subjectively, not true unconstrained choice. > > Of course. So what? So free will is an illusion, that's what. My only point all along. -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Bob Felts on 17 May 2010 14:34 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-17 11:56:43 -0400, RG said: > > >> What you are describing, is the *appearance* of free will, both > >> outwardly and subjectively, not true unconstrained choice. > > > > Of course. So what? > > So free will is an illusion, that's what. My only point all along. If free will is an illusion, are we responsible for our actions? Why, or why not?
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 14:53 On 2010-05-17 14:34:32 -0400, Bob Felts said: > If free will is an illusion, are we responsible for our actions? Why, > or why not? We are held responsible for them (by laws, norms, etc.) which is all that matters. This has whatever deterrent causal effect that it has on our meat-puppet selves. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Bob Felts on 17 May 2010 14:56 Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-17 14:34:32 -0400, Bob Felts said: > > > If free will is an illusion, are we responsible for our actions? Why, > > or why not? > > We are held responsible for them (by laws, norms, etc.) which is all > that matters. This has whatever deterrent causal effect that it has on > our meat-puppet selves. > Well, the law is largely based on the concept of free will; that's why pleas of insanity, through mental disease or defect, are used. In those cases, the defendent doesn't have "free will" and, therefore, isn't responsible. Since none of us have free will, should the laws be changed? (Don't argue what "is"; this is an issue of what ought to be.)
From: RG on 17 May 2010 15:42
In article <hss216$j41$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-17 11:56:43 -0400, RG said: > > >> What you are describing, is the *appearance* of free will, both > >> outwardly and subjectively, not true unconstrained choice. > > > > Of course. So what? > > So free will is an illusion, that's what. My only point all along. Free will is only an illusion on one particular and not very useful definition of free will. On other, more useful definitions, it is no more (and no less) an illusion than we ourselves are. rg |