On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>If free will just means will then why stick on the "free" ? >> > > > Because we believe that "free" does not add anything, > Except bafflegab. > except some emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of freedom. > And here we go again, same old shit. What does freedom mean? The ability to make a choice. What does the ability to make a choice mean? Freedom. And round and round she goes and were she stops nobody knows. > That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what > I meant. > So a Turing Machine has free will. >> I have never in my life said that first person indeterminacy does not >> exist, what I dismissed is that the discovery I sometimes don't know what >> I'm going to do or see next is profound and was first made by Bruno Marchal >> > > > WONDERFUL! > You act surprised but I've been saying the exact same thing over and over and over again for at least 3 years. > I am glad you agree now with the FPI. So you accept step 3. > Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since forgotten the details of your "proof". But are you telling me that the grand conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage was "I don't know"? The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I stopped reading. > You: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon all > notion of free will. > There is no notion of free will to abandon, all I'm saying that if members of the species Homo sapiens made the "free will" noise a little less often we could all live in a quieter environment. > Me: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon "non > compatibilism". > The trouble with compatibilism is that it's entire purpose was to solve the free will problem but it never clearly explained what the free will problem was. But to be fair non-compatibilists can't explaine what the free will problem is either so it's not surprising they haven't solved it. > You do the same error than with atheism: the christian literal God is non > sense, so let us decree that all what the christian asserts on God is false. > Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Well..., I will admit this, I am a Christian if and only if you are logical. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
