(Sloop) John P. wrote:
> If free will exists, then one can choose to NOT be free. Thus one who
> argues that everything he does is mechanistically determined and
> consistently acts and thinks according to this dictum, has freely chosen
> (albeit unconsciously) to be "determined". And thus cannot percieve free
> will and denies its very existence.
Marder gushed:
> I'd like to see a counter argument from a free-will denier.
OK... you guys wanna split infinitives, I'll split hairs. <G> Reductio ad
absurdum:
HOW exactly does one "choose" NOT to have free will? Evidently, one must
HAVE free will in order to choose in the first place; furthermore, as far as
I know, human mentalities don't come with a switch allowing one to disconnect
free will.... assuming one already has it.
Interesting to read about "perceiving" free will... is it something one
perceives with the ears, eyes, nose, skin or tongue?
As a counter-argument, a hypothetical philosophizer who fails to come to
grips with existential angst might well doggedly insist on the primacy of
his/her will, as a sort of psychological barrier against the despair that
nothing he or she can do in this universe will ever signify in the least.
Scathing, yes... but another way of thinking, possibly valid, certainly
deterministic, and definitely not supportive of the concept of free will.
I guess I know why debating the question of free will is popular (isn't
controversy fun?), but no one's convinced me of a better answer than "mu."
-Scott ("I didn't answer incorrectly, you asked the wrong question") K.
:P
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST