My friend Vic Stenger has written a blog on free will, mostly in response to
Sam Harris
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/free-will-is-an-illusion_b_1562533.html?ref=science
(don't bother to read the comments)
Vic suggests dropping the term 'free will' and using the term 'autonomy'
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You try moving your arm with an explanation or a reason or with no
reason. Did it move?
That's like asking how long is a piece of string. It depends on if I wanted
to move my arm or not.
Now just move your arm.
This time I
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be
predictable. Apparently you never studied game theory.
I'm no world class expert but I've taken several college courses on game
theory and I know enough to understand that
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand what's odd about that, certainly we need retributive
punishment if we don't want to be murdered in our beds.
I don't understand why anyone could not see that as a glaring violation of
common sense, except
While I agree about the judicial system, any system worth having should not
hinge upon metaphysical conclusions regarding free will. It's bizarre (and
somewhat anti-democratic) to say that we can or should argue for/against
some political issue on this basis.
The underlying assumption seems to be
On 6/4/2012 10:07 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You're hung up on the idea that purposeful action must be predictable.
Apparently
you never studied game theory.
I'm no world class expert but I've taken
I suppose that the idea is reform the system to reflect a purely consequentialist or
utilitarian ethic. It's partly there already, but it gets distorted a lot by ideas of
purity and sacredness (to use Jonathan Haidt's terminology); like It's just WRONG to get
pleasure from drugs.
Brent
On
I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
control.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On 6/4/2012 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
control.
Craig
If we don't have 'free will' we
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand how we can change the judicial system if we don't
have free will. All we can do is exist and watch to see whether we end
up being compelled to change it or not by forces outside of our
control.
If
On Jun 3, 4:38 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:48 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 7:08 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 1,
7:07 pm, RMahoney rmaho...@poteau.com wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:31 pm, Craig Weinberg
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.
There's nothing upsetting about it, I just don't understand how we
On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is fallacious.
There's nothing upsetting
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not true, then your
thinking is
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and therefore you conclude that it's not
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append pseudo- whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisions and have pseudo-free will. People who make bad
pseudo-decisions get
On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append pseudo- whenever
you talk about deciding something or having free will. We make
pseudo-decisions
On 6/4/2012 7:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/4/2012 6:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.comwrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it upsets you, I'm sorry. If it
upsets you and
On 6/4/2012 7:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:14 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:57 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to think that, fine. If it
On 6/4/2012 7:48 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:37 pm, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If it doesn't make sense to you then you can append pseudo- whenever
you talk about deciding something or
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
An automatic pilot has pseudo-free will according to you but it is
still causally efficacious.
An automatic pilot has no will. It's just a program implemented
technologically. Its causal efficacy is second hand by
22 matches
Mail list logo
