On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our control.

And so it goes, one group screams cries and jumps up and down insisting that we do have free will and another group is just as insistent that we do not. But neither group can stop yelling for one second to ask what "free will" is supposed to mean. I humbly suggest that we first decide what "free will" is, and only then would it be fruitful to debate the question of whether people have this interesting property or not; until then it's just a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

OK. Perhaps we should always make at least precise if we talk about compatibilist free will (c-free-will) or non comptatibilist free will (nc-free-will). People defending nc-free-will should say so.

In comp, c-free-will is rather easy to define, and even a variety of ways, and computer science theorem justifies a role, and plausibly a "darwinian selectable role" for some of the possible definitions.

About nc-free-will, I have not any idea (yet?) about what it could mean. I tend to agree with John on this.



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