From: Cameron Reilly (cameron@reilly.net)
Date: Wed Sep 08 1999 - 08:47:52 MDT
Ron Kean wrote:
>If it is true that there is no satisfactory definition of 'free will', that
>suggests that 'free will' may be a bogus concept. But my intuition tells
>me that there is free will.
Your intuition? My guess is that this is the same faculty that told you that
you had free will in the first place - aka "the ego".
Let's face it - many intelligent people know that the concept of free will
is bogus. However, understanding that truism and accepting the consequences
of it are completely separate issues. Giving up the illusion of control can
be hard. Anyone who has read any neuroscientific literature knows that
thoughts are created through a complex mechanism of dendrites, axons and
electrochemicals. None of us can credibly claim to be "in control" of that
process, anymore than we can claim to be in control of our digestive system.
And just because I discard the concept that I am not in control of the
production of acids in my digestive system, does not mean that the process
is discontinued. Why should giving up the concept of free will mean that
thoughts would stop being produced by the brain? Try it and see for
yourself. Give up free will for a week and see what happens. Say No To Free
Will! :-)
And discarding the concept of free will does not mean that we have to throw
out law and order. In any sane society, when someone commits a crime they
are punished because they committed a crime; not because they *chose* to be
evil. As a society we choose to remove certain people who are deemed to be a
danger to the rest of us. This process does not stop if we discard the
concept of free will.
Cameron Reilly
email: cameron@reilly.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.com [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.com]On
Behalf Of ronkean@juno.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:47 AM
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Free Will
> Evolver16@aol.com <Evolver16@aol.com>
> > >If we had no free will, and we acted on that belief, that all
> >actions are programmed in, or are the result of random
> synapses,> >then there would be no reason to hold people
responsible for
> their actions.
>
Agreed that if there is no free will, then it may well be argued that we
_should not_ hold people responsible for their actions, but that doesn't
mean that we can't go ahead and do it anyway. After all, if there is no
such thing as free will, which is to say that all decisions are
pre-determined in principle or pre-progammed in some sense, then the
decision to hold people resposible would also be pre-programmed, so it
would be manifestly meaningless to discuss the advisability of that
decision, since under the 'no free will' assumption we really don't have
a free choice.
Thoughts arise spontaneously, but not entirely at random. For example,
when one is concentrating on working on a project, thoughts which arise
in the worker during that time tend to be related to the project. Some
thoughts suggest action, but people select their actions, and do not
actually perform the action suggested by each and every thought. But I
am unable to say how this selection is done, and whether it is an
expression of free will. At the same time we can almost always provide
reasons why any particular decesion was made. I am frankly unable to
provide a good definition of 'free will' which is not circular in the
sense that it is just a restatement of the concept in other words. If it
is true that there is no satisfactory definition of 'free will', that
suggests that 'free will' may be a bogus concept. But my intuition tells
me that there is free will.
Ron Kean
.
.
.
.
.
.
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:05 MST