--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > You know, speaking for myself alone on this one, I don't
> > > > believe in lack of free will but also don't believe in
> > > > free will either. I just don't know.
> > >
> > > You're speaking for me as well as yourself, wayback. I
> > > agree with everything you've said here about determinism
> > > and free will.
> >
> > My recollection from conversations with the Revs crowd (Tom T, Rory, et
> > al.) is that free will vs. determinism is a false dichotomy.
> >
>
> Its like a ball rolling down the hill. It can't roll up the hill. Or
> sideways. Just down. But the course it ends up taking is the interaction of
> so many factors, it can hardly be said to be pre-determined. And two balls
> rolling down the same hill will find some small variations in terrain or wind
> or what ever, and over time end up in quite different spots.
>
Yes, but under-determined does not add up to free will
does it?
Let's say I build a robot and incorporate a true random
number generator that leads to a degree of unpredictability
in it's ("his"/"her"?) behaviour. I wouldn't say that's a
robot with free will.
In fact the idea of free will incorporates determinism -
a determinism that starts with me: X happens because "I"
make it so.
I wonder if the issue is not really best expressed as
"free v determinism", but rather as "monism v pluralism".
There appears to be lots of "agents" in the world. You,
me and all their relatives. Not to mention the animals,
and (maybe?) the insects, the elemental forces, etc etc.
YOMV - Your Ontology May Vary.
So determinism is the view that there is "in reality"
just one agent - "Nature", "God", "Stuff", whatever
you want to call it.
The free-willers believe in, as Willy is fond of
putting it, a plurality of monads.
Can Monism and Pluralism both be true? Ah, The "Problem
Of The One And The Many"! Now that's a problem that's
been keeping folks awake at night for millenia.
