On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If it looks like it has a will but doesn't then it has pseudo-will. > > It only looks like it has a will if you interpret it that way. It > doesn't look that way to me. No more than Bugs Bunny is a pseudo- > rabbit that has a pseudo-appetite for pseudo-carrots. It could be said > that way figuratively, and that is the sense in which any simulation > or emulation 'exists' but literally, Bugs Bunny is a shared audio- > visual text: A recurring part of our direct personal and indirect > cultural sense experience. I know that according to you I'm misinterpreting the deterministically driven entity as having free will - we've established that much if nothing else! So if I think it has free will but I'm wrong, it has pseudo-free will. How can we tell that its will is pseudo-free? You said earlier that if it's causally efficacious it can't be pseudo-free but that's obviously wrong. What other criteria can we use to decide if the entity in question has true free will or just looks as if it has free will to people like me? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
