On Nov 21, 6:35 pm, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 6:31 am, Rex Allen <rexallen31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> My position is:
>
> >> So either there is a reason for what I choose to do, or there isn't.
>
> >> If there is a reason, then the reason determined the choice. No free will.
>
> > Unless you determined the reason.
>
> How would you do that? By what means? According to what rule? Using
> what process?
>
> If you determined the reason, what determined you? Why are you in the
> particular state you're in?
>
> If there exists some rule that translates your specific state into
> some particular choice, then there's still no free will. The rule
> determined the choice.
And if there isn't...you have an action that is reasoned yet
undetermined,
as required
> >> =*=*=*=
>
> >> As for my definition of free will:
>
> >> "The ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused."
>
> >> Obviously there is no such ability, since "random" and "caused"
> >> exhaust the possibilities.
>
> >> But some people believe in the existence of such an ability anyway.
>
> > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose and
> > consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought
> > about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances".
>
> How does this differ in meaning from my definition? I don't think it does.
>
> > Not that according to this definition:
>
> > 1. Free will is not deterministic behaviour. It is not driven by
> > external circumstances.
>
> OK. Not in conflict with my definition.
>
> > 2. Nor is free will is randomness or mere caprice. ("Rationally
> > choose and consciously perform").
>
> OK. Not in conflict with my definition.
>
> > 3. Free will requires independence from external circumstances. It
> > does not require independence or separation from one's own self. Ones
> > actions must be related to ones thoughts and motives
>
> Related by what? Deterministic rules? Probabilistic?
> If one's actions are determined by ones thoughts and motives, what
> determines one's thoughts and motives?
>
> And why do some particular set of thoughts and motives result in one
> choice instead of some other? If there is no reason for one choice
> instead of the other, the choice was random.
>
> > 4. But not complete independence. Free will does not require that
> > all our actions are free in this sense, only that some actions are not
> > entirely un-free. ("...at least some of which...").
>
> OK. Not in conflict with my definition.
>
> > 5. Free will also does not require that any one action is entirely
> > free. In particular, free will s not omnipotence: it does not require
> > an ability to transcend natural laws, only the ability to select
> > actions from what is physically possible.
>
> Select using what rule? What process? What mechanism? Magic?
>
> Either there is a reason that you selected the action you did, in
> which case the reason determined the selection - or there isn't, in
> which case the selection was random.
>
> Also the phrase "from what is physically possible" is suspicious. If
> the natural laws determine what is physically possible, don't they
> determine everything?
Not if they are probablistic. In a probablistic universe,
some things are still impossible
> Where does this leave room for free will?
>
> "the ability to select actions from what is physically possible"
>
> Select by means that is neither random nor caused. Okay. That's what I said.
Select means it is neither determined nor unreasoned
> > 6. Free will as defined above does not make any assumptions about
> > the ontological nature of the self/mind/soul. There is a theory,
> > according to which a supernatural soul pulls the strings of the body.
> > That theory is all too often confused with free will. It might be
> > taken as an explanaiton of free will, but it specifies a kind of
> > mechanism or explanation — not a phenomenon to be explained.
>
> OK. Not in conflict with my definition.
>
> > I.1.v Libertarianism — A Prima Facie case for free will
>
> As for the rest of it, I read it, but didn't find it convincing on any level.
>
> RIG + SIS <> Free Will
>
> A random process coupled to a deterministic process isn't free will.
> It's just a random process coupled to a deterministic process.
If you insist that FW is a Tertium Datur that is fundamenally
different from both determinism and causation, then you
won't accept a mixture. However, I don;t think Tertium Datur
is a good definition of DW sinc e it is too question begging
> If you
> ask most people "is this free will?" - they will say no.
>
> Free will (in most peoples estimation) requires a process that is
> neither random *nor* determinstic.
Surely not most people. Theres a lot
of compatibilists about, for instance.
> Not one that is both.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
