On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 11:21 AM Joel Dietz <[email protected]> wrote:
*There are two completely incompatible models of free will and thus, the > term is overloaded and subject to misinterpretation.* > *1. "free will" in the sense of a necessary description of the way in > which a particular self-identified subject choses an action without > coercion.* > And either there was a reason you chose that action rather than another in which case you're a cuckoo clock, or there was no reason you chose that action rather than another in which case you're a roulette wheel. Where does this thing called "free will" enter the picture? Forget figuring out if we have it or not, just tell me what it is supposed to mean. I don't think it means anything, I think it's an idea so bad it's not even wrong. *> 2. "free will" in the sense that some elements of our universe may be > non-deterministic and in which the idea of the "self" (and particularly, > the idea of our own self) may have an ability to change some outcomes based > on some concept of agency.* > That doesn't make any sense, if it was non-deterministic then there was no reason for that change and your actions were unreasonable, but if "agency" (whatever that means) was the reason for the change then the change was deterministic not non-deterministic. *> This is an extremely illusive concept because it is basically unprovable > by definition. * > Then it's not a useful concept and thinking about it is not worth the wear and tear inflicted on our neurons. *> For example, imagine a construct of 10,000 neurons in which you know > exactly what each neuron does, precisely how it receives its stimulus and > its exact programming. You can then say "I know how this construct works > and reliably discern what inputs will lead to what outputs." However, it is > *impossible* to prove that there is not another as of yet invisible or > unmeasurable mechanism within the construct that can alter or override the > standard system of inputs and outputs. * > I can't prove there is not a teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus either , but there's no reason to think there is one and there are plenty of reasons to suspect there is not. *> The concept of "God" bridges over both of these concepts and makes it > more complex,* > Even in the unlikely event that God exists I don't see how that alters things one iota. It is as true for God as it is for me, God either does what He does for a reason in which case His actions are reasonable, or He does what he does for no reason in which case His actions are unreasonable. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> lnb -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv29e5%3DjUbLL4cDrdjy-f3bmU7qjBCejYFXqczN3K%2BXTtw%40mail.gmail.com.
