Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 18:45 On 2010-05-17 17:23:30 -0400, Don Geddis said: > This is what people _really_ mean by "free will". Not your silly wiki > quote earlier. You'll have to forgive me if I continue to rely on a definition edited and reviewed by philosophers, consistent with historical philosophical usage, consistent with the history of religion, and consistent with the history of legal systems, rather than your emphatically stated, but otherwise unsupported assertion of what people "_really_ mean." That free will may very well be an illusion, is, precisely as Bob Felts implied, a significant issue for legal and moral theory. For example: <http://cogprints.org/3384/1/Cogprints_Wegner_commentary_by_Velmans.htm> Serious researchers in this area do realize the legal and moral implications of the neuroscience, even if you're in denial about it. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 18:48 On 2010-05-17 17:18:11 -0400, Don Geddis said: > What would it mean for a > choice to be "unconstrained", completely? again: "Non-physical theories hold that a non-physical mind overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism in philosophy. According to this view, the world is not believed to be closed under Physics. An extra-physical will is believed to play a part in the decision making process. According to a somewhat related theological explanation, a soul is said to make decisions and override physical causality." "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will" -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: RG on 17 May 2010 19:01 In article <hss9ib$d7n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > On 2010-05-17 15:42:27 -0400, RG said: > > > Free will is only an illusion on one particular and not very useful > > definition of free will. > > But this is the definition of free will that the overwhelming majority > of people believe they have. I doubt that very much. In fact, a belief that one is free to choose to violate the laws of physics is generally considered pathological. I think most people believe that they are free to choose, for example, to jump off a bridge. I don't think very many people believe that having done so they would be free to choose not to fall. > It is, as Bob Felts points out, also the > definition of free will that underlies most legal systems. If Bob Felts pointed that out then he's simply wrong. > So, though > many familiar with the science may think this traditional definition of > free will scientifically naive (or "not very useful"), it is > nevertheless the one most relevant to everyday life. I guess we'll just have to choose to agree to disagree about that. rg
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 19:03 On 2010-05-17 17:46:23 -0400, Kenneth Tilton said: > You are stuck in a massive category error and no ladder can reach you. Wow. This is deep. You should showcase this someplace appropriate, like, say, a fortune cookie. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro
From: Raffael Cavallaro on 17 May 2010 19:14
On 2010-05-17 19:01:10 -0400, RG said: > I doubt that very much. In fact, a belief that one is free to choose to > violate the laws of physics is generally considered pathological. I > think most people believe that they are free to choose, for example, to > jump off a bridge. I don't think very many people believe that having > done so they would be free to choose not to fall. You have the same confusion as Tamas and Nicolas. To believe that one has choice unconstrained by the laws of physics is to believe that, given two or more *physically possible* choices, one can choose either/any, and that this choice, is not constrained by the laws of physics. It is *not* the belief that one can choose physical impossibilities. again: "Non-physical theories hold that a non-physical mind overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism in philosophy. According to this view, the world is not believed to be closed under Physics. An extra-physical will is believed to play a part in the decision making process. According to a somewhat related theological explanation, a soul is said to make decisions and override physical causality." > If Bob Felts pointed that out then he's simply wrong. No, he's right; most legal systems originated in an era when this sort of mind-body or soul-body dualism was the accepted truth, a pre-scientific belief that most people unthinkingly hew to today. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro |