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 these days, even a pair of dice can be pretty stupid, the smart thing for it to do would be to come up with a 7, but sometimes it comes up with a 2 even though that number is 6 times less likely. Only a idiot would pick 2 but
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to