On 14 Jun 2012, at 18:21, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> 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.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
