On Friday, December 14, 2012 12:39:59 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> 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>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.
>> Think of it this way. Determined and random are the two unintentional
>> vectors which oppose the single intentional vector. Why is that so hard to
>> conceptualize? You are using it right now to do the conceptualizing...
> The dichotomy is intentional/unintentional, not
They are the same thing.
> It could be intentional and determined,
No, that equates free will with determinism. Intention means there is a
teleological agent who is experiencing that they are causing the process to
occur, regardless of the public correlation to other sub-personal and
super-personal levels of causality. Intention is personal and it runs
inside to outside.
> intentional and random,
No. That equates doing something 'on purpose' with doing something 'by
accident'. Our entire legal system is devoted to enforcing judgments,
including the death penalty, based on the assumption that the two are
mutually exclusive in principle. That doesn't make it a scientific fact,
but it should be a hint that if science has no idea why it is an
anthropological universal to consider it this way, then there must be more
> unintentional and determined or unintentional and random.
They are identical. Determined (as in pre-determined by event or law) is
always unintentional and random is virtually synonymous with unintentional.
You could intentionally do something that seems random to you, but that's
pretty shaky - unlikely really given human psychology. To the contrary, as
psychologists in the 20th century found out, random responses can often
reveal more about the psyche than intentional descriptions.
>> This is why our brains don't give a rat's ass whether physical causes are
>> ultimately random or determined, but discerning whether physical causes are
>> intentional or unintentional us a matter of *the highest possible
> Yes, that's what I have been saying. We care about whether something is
> intentional or unintentional, and unless we are engaged in discussions such
> as this we don't even consider whether the underlying physics is determined
> or random.
But you don't seem to know what intentional is, nor do you seem to
acknowledge or care that you don't know.
>> Can you see what I mean? Because I understand what you mean completely
>> and see clearly that you have one eye shut and one hand tied behind your
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> For more options, visit this group at
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at