On 11 Aug 2012, at 09:45, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:22:06PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
"Free will is the ability to do something stupid".
Well OK, but there sure as hell is a lot of free will going around
days, even a pair of dice can be pretty stupid, the smart thing for
do would be to come up with a 7, but sometimes it comes up with a 2
though that number is 6 times less likely. Only a idiot would pick
sometimes the dice does. As Homer Simpson would say "Stupid dice".
Roulette wheels do what they do, they never do anything different.
Sure they do, sometimes they produce a 12 and sometimes they
produce a 21.
John K Clark
In both your examples, (dice and roulette wheels), they always do
something stupid (generate a random number). There is no choice in
their actions, so it is senseless to assign agency to them. There is
no optimisation of utility.
I think you may be deliberately taking my statement out of context.
Nevertheless, randomness is a key component of free will.
So comp is false? I mean comp can only defend a compatibilist (or
mechanist, deterministic) theory of free-will, like with the self-
indetermination based on diagonalization.
I have never seen how we can use randomness to justify free-will. May
be you can elaborate?
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