On 5/31/2012 10:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Brian Tenneson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Of course it doesn't, nothing real can have anything to do with "free
will"
because "free will" is gibberish.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
I stopped reading after the first line:
“Free Will” is a philosophical"
Already I have a bad feeling about this.
"term of art or a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of
action from among various alternatives. "
If they are "rational agents" then it's rational and if it's rational then there is a
reason behind it and if there is a reason behind it then it's deterministic.
That's not logically the case. People who believe in 'free will' think the reason is in
front of it, i.e. the reason for posting this is to communicate. If they believe in
'libertarian free will' they think that this teleological reason can be an efficient
physical cause with no determinate antecedents. A random event could satisfy the
'efficient physical cause' but they rule out random events as inconsistent with obviously
purposeful decisions and actions. This contradicts our theories of physics and the brain
- but it is not a logical contradiction as you imply.
Brent
Like I said, gibberish, but that shouldn't be surprising, it was after all written by
philosophers.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
