t
>billwald:
>> >Disagree, free will is acting against one's best judgement, against one's
>> >nature, against one's programming.
>
>>Bertvan
>>Well put, and I agree. That is indeterminate free will, the kind science
>>will never be able to measure.
>>Bertvan
Chris
>I hope you will both think about what that would actually mean in real
>world terms. Free will is usually regarded as a basis for responsibility.
>But, if it means acting against one's nature, against one's *best*
>judgment, then it means acting *irresponsibly*, like a Copenhagen quantum
>particle that simply arbitrarily behaves a certain way, independently of
>what it is, and on no causal basis whatever. It would be the *absolute*
>antithesis of anything a person could be responsible for, like murdering
>someone because of the influence of a powerful drug that someone had
>slipped into one's drinking water. Such "free will" would be like a random
>quantum event, utterly beyond one's control; one would simply *do*
>something, for good or ill, without regard for reality, reason,
>consequences, or morality, even if one had devoted one's life to developing
>just such regard, and even if one's brain was in perfect health.
>No person who had even a modicum of rationality could conceivably *want*
>such disastrous "free will."
Bertvan
Hi Chris, I think I've just become a devotee of the Copenhagen quantum
particle. :-) (Apparently I can claim pretty impressive company.) The kind
of free will you allow isn't actually free. Your version of free will has
merely converted love, altruism, unselfishness, concepts of right and wrong,
etc., into complex types of instincts. (Which came into existence throught
random variation and natural selection?) IMHO, this reasoning seems rather
convoluted, but if one is a materialist, I suppose one has no choice. Free
will is best exemplified, according by most people, by those times when an
individual regards an idea, a cause or others creatures as more important
than themselves. You exert all this effort to promote materialism, because
you believe converting everyone to materialism is more important than
furthering your own comfort and self-interest. You lament the stupidity of
everyone who disagrees with you, because you feel it is important that
everyone should be as smart as you. Why should you even care how smart or
stupid everyone else is? Do you consider such "caring" an "instinct", which
came into existence by "suvival of the fittest"? Your "caring" ancestors
out-reproduced those who didn't "care"? I do agree that if one is a
materialist, your version of free will is the only option, but where does it
say everyone has to be a materialist?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 11:40:02 EDT