On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > religious people defined it [free will] often by the ability to choose
And those very same religious people define consciousness as the ability to
have free will, and around and around we go.
> and people from the law can invoke it as a general precondition for
> making sense of the responsibility idea.
That is precisely what it does NOT do and is why the "free will" noise
turns the idea of responsibility, which is needed for any society to work,
into ridiculous self contradictory idiocy.
> The "Free" prefix is just an emphasis, and I don't take it too much
You say that but I don't believe it and I don't think even you really
believe it, otherwise you'd just say "will" means you want to do some
things and don't want to do other things and we'd move on and talk about
other things, but you can't seem to do that and keep inserting more
bafflegab into the free will "idea" and not the will idea.
> It can be mean things like absence of coercion.
In other words I can't do everything I want to do. I don't need a
philosopher to figure that out and doesn't deserve the many many millions
of words they have written about "free will"?
> I never said that such a definition makes everything clear, nor do I have
> said it was marvelous, nor even self-consistent. I did say that you ignore
> it, for reason which eludes me,
I don't ignore "it", in fact in post after post after post I have asked
you, almost begged you, to tell me even approximately if that's the best
you can do, what "it" is; but for reasons which eludes me you will not do
> The first person indeterminacy has nothing to do with free will.
I don't know what "first person indeterminacy" is but I know that your
above statement is true because nothing has anything to do with free will.
> In "Conscience et Mécanisme" I even use it to explain that free will has
> nothing to do with absolute determinacy or indeterminacy.
In other words free will has nothing to do with things that happen for a
reason and free will has nothing to do with things that do not happen for a
reason. I agree, and that means that free will is something that doesn't do
anything, so free will does have one property, infinite dullness.
> In the human fundamental sense, most of the time we don't have
That is very true. Except for mathematics and formal logic precise
definitions are usually not very important because we have something
better, examples. If you can't provide a definition then give me a set
containing examples of things that have free will and a set containing
examples of things that don't have free will; and be consistent about it,
explain why elements like Bruno Marchal and John K Clark belong in the same
set but elements like Cuckoo Clocks and Roulette Wheels belong in the other
> Free-will, or will, is acknowledged *relative* self-indeterminacy.
Now that's better, much better. I have said many times there are only 2
definitions of free will that are not gibberish:
1) Free Will is a noise made by the mouth.
2) Free Will is the inability to always predict ones actions even in a
> We can't define consciousness, but
We all have a EXCELLENT example of such a thing.
> > You cannot say "I don't know what is free-will, yet I do criticize the
> definition you give".
There are only 2 reasons for criticizing a definition about anything:
1) It is unclear.
2) It is inconsistent.
Every definition of "Free Will" I have ever heard in my life, except for
the two mentioned previously, fail for one or both of these reasons.
> You come back on the inconsistent definition of free will, that we both
> agree make no sense. So why do you reject the one I gave
Oh no not again! I'd sure like to know what this marvelous definition of
free will that you keep saying you made sometime ago could be! You keep
talking about "it" but I don't know what "it" is, "it" is starting to take
on mythic qualities, like Unicorns or Hobbits.
> I gave a definition.
Maybe you did during the age of Middle Earth but I think its time to repeat
> you reject it
As long as its clear and self consistent only a idiot rejects definitions.
I am not a idiot. The fact that I can always draw conclusions from your
many definitions that you find emotionally unappealing does not make them
I was just saying that I am not applying the excluded middle outside comp
> and arithmetic. [...] I don't believe in the law of the excluded middle
> when applied on arbitrary set notions
So if I tell you the perfectly true statement "I was hit by lightning at
noon" and you believe me completely you could nevertheless deduce that I
might not have been hit by lightning at noon because X being true does not
imply that ~X is false. I really don't think that's a good way to figure
out how the world works. it's hard enough already.
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@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at