On Feb 7, 6:31 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wrote it several times before and write it again: there is NO SUCH THING
> as a FREE WILL in a world of total interconnectedness and continual change.
> The term has been invented by religious potentates to keep gulligible
> people under their thumb for FEAR of repraisals if they
> committ "CRIMES" (as they identified). Gullible people believed it
> including physicists who tried to justify it in their math-ways - no matter
> how.
> To make a decision is either consciously dependent on the 'givens' (i.e.
> circumstances as we see them, as compared to our situation - interest - or
> possibilities) - OR - it is unconsciously so.

If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of
decision at all. I agree that nothing can be FREE in an absolute
sense, but it can be free in a relative sense. This is why US law
includes a continuum of possibilities of intention, like premeditated
murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary
manslaughter, criminally negligent manslaughter, and not guilty. Not
to cite the law as some kind of authoritative canon, but to recognize
the utility and civility of the concept.

> We can decide AGAINST our known interest or survival: that, too, is a
> consequence of our conscious, or subconscious mindset. Nothing FREE.

Our will extends beyond mere decision making though. We can create new
options. We can decide that we don't like the options and seek novel,
ever conceived of before approaches. If artistic and scientific genius
isn't an example of free will, what is the point of recognizing it?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to