On 27 Jun 2017, at 16:14, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> As Brent just mentioned, it makes sense in a court law,
No, free will makes no sense in any context; and
that's exactly why the court system in most countries is such a
ridiculous chaotic self contradictory mess.
So free-will exists, because there is certainly one country having a
better court system than another, and indeed, just compare a court
system of a democracy and a totalitarian state.
> and indeed, I am not sure a lot of human value (justice,
freedom, responsibility,
Justice and responsibility are intrinsically linked with the
concept of punishment, and the only logical reason to punish anybody
for anything is to discourage similar acts in the future; if it
can't do that then there is no point to the punishment. It's true
that the reptilian part of our brain can also get enjoyment from
making somebody we don't like suffer just for the sake of suffering,
but I'm not proud of that part of my brain and so the more recently
evolved parts of that organ have decided to refuse to defend such a
feeling.
As for freedom that just means the ability to do what you want to
do, and sometimes you can but usually you can not because something
restrains you, if by nothing else the laws of physics.
The ability to do what you want to do is freedom, OK, but that notion
needs some free-will to make sense, and then some amount of degrees of
freedom to enact the free-will.
> To decide that free-will does not exist [...]
Unicorns don't exist,
In which theory?
the largest prime number doesn't exist,
The existence of a largest prime number is consistent with RA. I guess
you assume PA or second order arithmetic. "existence" is a notion
depending of the theory, and its interpretation.
Harry Potter doesn't exist, but it would be wrong to say free will
doesn't exist. Free will has neither the property of existence nor
nonexistence because free will is pure unadulterated gibberish.
Mocking a notion is not more convincing than mocking a person.
> The program e imagine itself doing two tasks and choose to
actually proceed on one of them by comparing mentally the
consequences.
Sure, the program decided to do X rather than Y for a reason, just
as a cog in a cuckoo clock decided to turn left rather than right
for a reason.
You are using the incompatibilist notion of free-will, but we have
already discuss this, and we both agree that incompatibilist free-will
does not make sense.
You do the same thing with all terms in theology. You choose an absurd
theory, and then condemn the concept by mocking the theory, instead of
criticizing the theory and searching a better one.
You could say that Earth does not exist given that a flat earth does
not make sense.
> Free-will denial is first person denial.
Please please I'm begging you, lets not wade back into that
cesspool of pointless peepee!
Mocking a notion is not more convincing than mocking a person. Here
you do both. I guess it is a rhetorical trick to hide an absence of
arguments.
Bruno
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
