On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't see that as contrary to compatibilism which holds that 'free will' > is compatible with determinism (but not that determinism is necessarily > true). Of course an otherwise deterministic intelligence may make a random > choice as part of a rational strategy. Does libertarian free will *require* > that some actions be random? These are the possibilities: determinism true, free will true determinism true, free will false determinism false, free will true determinism false, free will false Now, I would say that if something is not determined, it is random. You can think of unusual cases and they still fit into the determined or random categories. For example, if my decisions depend on my brain solving the halting program, I would say that is still determined, even if it is not computable. I don't think invoking the spiritual realm or exotic physics changes the dichotomy, although maybe the argument comes down to semantics. In any case, the non-compatibilists like Craig Weinberg won't be satisfied with *any* explanation of how people make decisions: not antecedent cause, not retroactive causation, not randomness, not manipulation by a spiritual force. It's nonsensical. -- 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.
