On 11/27/2010 12:53 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 7:44 AM, 1Z<peterdjo...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
On Nov 26, 6:31 am, Rex Allen<rexallen31...@gmail.com>  wrote:
Any defense of "free will" must allow for ultimate responsibility for actions.
Mine does
Random events don't qualify as free will.

A deterministic process doesn't qualify as free will.

Random events feeding into a deterministic process don't qualify as free will.

It doesn't matter how complex you make the whole system, it's still
doesn't have free will.

This system isn't ultimately responsible since it isn't responsible
for the random events that feed into it, and it isn't responsible for
the deterministic rules that filter the random events.

Every act this system executes is traceable to those two things, and
it can never be free of them.  Neither is sufficient for ultimate

The only way you can get free will from this is to redefine free will.
  And I still don't understand why your so desperate to do so.

"Free will", like "square circle", refers to something that doesn't exist.

"Free will" = "ability to make choices that are neither random nor caused"
"square circle" = "an object that is both a square and a circle"

This is a false dichotomy. If a deterministic algorithm evaluates the probability of success for three different actions as A=0.5 B=0.45 and C=0.05 and then a choice between A and B is made at random, then the process has made a choice that is both deterministic and random.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to