On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:32:12 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>> If free will were, after all, an illusion, then there would really be not 
>> much of an advantage in discerning intention to cause harm from a simple 
>> propensity to cause harm.
> Free will is an illusion only if you define it in a logically impossible 
> way, neither determined nor random. 

Let's look at your suggestion. IF YOU (choose to) define it

What does that mean? How does it work? It sounds like it isn't random 
right? So it must be determined? So are you saying "Free will is an 
illusion only if it is defined by forces utterly outside your control in a 
logically impossible way..."

Well that doesn't make sense either, does it? Who is this YOU that you are 
talking to? Why do you think that the author of these words would have any 
more insight into how this 'YOU' might define something than the author of 
your words?

The dichotomy of random vs determined is not the only possible logic, and 
it is not a useful logic for understanding participation and will. 

> Since everything is either determined or random,

It isn't. My choices are not determined, nor are they random. They are 
varying degrees of intentional and unintentional with deterministic and 
possibly random influences which are necessary but not sufficient to 
explain my causally efficacious solitude and agency.

> if something appears to be neither then that must be an illusion. 

Illusions are a figment of expectation. What you call an optical illusion, 
I call a living encyclopedia of visual perception and optics. Something can 
only be an illusion if you mistakenly interpret it as something else.

> In any case, it is important to know if someone has intention to cause 
> harm because that may be indication he is more dangerous to you than 
> someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by 
> deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really 
> relevant.

If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be 
indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The 
prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of 
discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary 
control over their actions and random or deterministic unconscious physical 

Think about it,

> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
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