-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>>Me:
>> Free Will is the inability to always know what you will do next,
>>and not know when you'll not know, even in an unchanging environment.
Damien Broderick <d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au> Wrote:
>No, that's just a side consequence. The idea that humans have (a faculty of)
>free will is surely an attempt to formalise or account for the tussle
>we often experience when we are impelled by `mixed motives'.
>We momentarily become aware of the usually inaccessible seething
>of the society of mind or self parliament.
That's pretty much what I said, I just said it shorter. I don't understand what you're objecting to.
>To what extent an executive decision can actually prevail over the appetites
>is unclear to me
The executive always prevails, it always does what it wants to, it's just that the appetites (and fears) can change what it wants.
>but *randomness* and/or *unknowability of alternatives* are not part of
>that obscurity.
Why not? If you knew with certainty every single thing you would do tomorrow would you have free will, wouldn't you feel like a robot? My point is that even a robot doesn't feel like a robot.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5
iQA/AwUBN7e1pt+WG5eri0QzEQLo8gCfbhaMJjBgEaxhkMmQM2KJRByCZFwAoN2q
pDgYdtoe/TDHE05HLXYWmvrN
=/gc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----