on 3/4/01 5:49 PM, Darryl Shannon at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's the thing about determinism. If you believe in determinism
> there is no point in trying to convince other people that it
> exists...since they are predestined to believe in free will.
>
> It seems to me that the determinism/free will argument is a one way
> ratchet, like logic/no logic. If you don't accept logic then there's
> no reason to try to convince you to accept logic...since you would
> reject any logical arguments as worthless. Same thing with
> determinism. Maybe determinism is true, but if it is, why would anyone
> care?
>
> The only reasonable choice is to accept both logic and free will. Kind
> of my own personal version of Pascal's wager.
The choice isn't really between determinism and free will anyway.
The strictest 'Laplacian' form of determinism is based on a Newtonian
physics which is incompatible with our modern understanding of physics. The
world is still lawful, but some of the laws include 'insert random number
here' clauses. Cause and effect still proceeds in an orderly way but the
outcomes are nondeterministic. This is still incompatible with the strongest
version of the idea of free will<1>, since that requires uncaused actions.
A less strong form of the idea of free will<2> that allows it to be
compatible with the lawful operation of our physical selves (but still extra
to it) appears to be unnecessary since it has no testable consequences. (If
a brain without free will<2> reaches the same decisions as a brain with free
will<2> there is no way of telling if there is any such thing at all as free
will<2>.)
Then there is the idea that free will<3> just *is* the lawful operation of
our physical selves with no extra required. This view of free will<3> is
compatible with the idea of psychological determinism...
At this point you could call the glass half empty or half full.
So the choice is between lawfulness or free will<1> or lawful free will<3>.
<1,2,3> I just put the little numbers in to make it clear that free will<>
is used differently in each case. Professional philosophers would have
several more little numbers, with subdivisions in each case...
--
William T Goodall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
