My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in response to
Sam Harris
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html?ref=science
(don't bother to read the comments)
Vic suggests dropping the term 'free will' and using the term 'autonomy' t
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no
> reason. Did it move?
That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted
to move my arm or not.
> Now just move your arm.
This time I wanted to move my arm
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb wrote:
> > You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be
> predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory.
>
I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game
theory and I know enough to understand that there has been no
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive
>> punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds.
>>
>
> I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of
> common sense, except that I think i
While I agree about the judicial system, any system worth having should not
hinge upon metaphysical conclusions regarding free will. It's bizarre (and
somewhat anti-democratic) to say that we can or should argue for/against
some political issue on this basis.
The underlying assumption seems to be
On 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable.
Apparently
you never studied game theory.
I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college cours
I suppose that the idea is reform the system to reflect a purely consequentialist or
utilitarian ethic. It's partly there already, but it gets distorted a lot by ideas of
purity and sacredness (to use Jonathan Haidt's terminology); like "It's just WRONG to get
pleasure from drugs."
Brent
On
I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
control.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 6/4/2012 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
control.
Craig
If we don't have 'free will' we
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
> have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
> up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
> control.
If you want to think
On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Jun 1,
> > 7:07 pm, RMahoney wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 31, 6:14 pm, RMahoney wrote:
> > > > > > They s
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
> thinking is fallacious.
There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we can
talk about
On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.
There's nothing upsetting about it, I just d
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>
>> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
>> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
>> thinking is fallacious.
>
> There's nothing
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> >> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
> >> thinking is
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >> If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
> >> upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
>> you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
>> pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
>> pseudo-decisions get into troubl
On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >> If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
> >> you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
> >> pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will.
On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannouwrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not t
On 6/4/2012 7:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you con
On 6/4/2012 7:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append "pseudo-" whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisio
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
>> still causally efficacious.
>
> An automatic pilot has no will. It's just a program implemented
> technologically. Its causal efficacy is second hand by way of being
> d
22 matches
Mail list logo