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 <[email protected]> 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?
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.
