🚀 go-pugleaf

>>> Barry Kort >> Brian Colfer

>>>	   1) No one can absolutely answer the question of whether 
>>>		  the human mind is completely determined.

    In fact we can: The mind is not "completely determined" if by that
    you means "completely determined by antecedent causes". Assuming
    that the mind corresponds somehow to the brain, chaos theory
    plus QM provide exactly the one-two knockout blow to any
    causally deterministic account of human action, or the weather,
    or anything else of a sufficiently complex nature. If anything
    it is the mind's amazing ability to be somewhat globally predictable
    (once you know its beliefs and desires) in the face of massive 
    physical indeterminism that demands an accounting, not its 
    unpredictability.

>I see Barry Kort and Mike Ellis' position as being the same as Sartre's.  If
>free will exists it always is there and we are therefor ultimately 
>responsible for every action.  

    "Responsible will" is different from "free will" (or is rather more
    like Kant's account of free will). We are responsible for our actions
    precisely when they are in accord with reason, regardless of the
    neurophysiological facts of the matter. Even if free will in the
    strongest sense does not exist, a weaker form is all that is needed
    to account for responsibility: Do those actions of yours which affect
    others the rationally result from your beliefs and desires? Do your
    future beliefs and desires rationally result from your present ones?
    Are your present beliefs and desires rational? If not, do you have
    enough self control to restrain your irrational beliefs and desires
    so that they do not result in actions that are dangerous to others or
    yourself? If so, you got responsible will, and many are happy to call that
    free will, although I don't number among those.

    It is beyond me why you see Barry's position that same as mine (or Sartre's
    for that matter).
....
>If you don't care about scientific methods for reasoning or evidence well 
>then you can make any sort of outrageous claims.  

    Science has done a pretty good job at proving all sorts of things not
    deterministic. I do agree, however, that the strongest versions of free 
    will are philosophical, not scientific, claims.

>In a non-rigorus analysis I think that there are really only two sources of 
>belief: authority, and evidence.  If you primarily derive your beliefs from 
>evidence (it is public or private evidence) then why not be systematic.  If 
>you primarly derive your beliefs from authorities, Bible, parents, politicians
>etc.  without any demonstration of evidence then you are lost.  Free will
>is a concept born from authority and not evidence.

    Baloney. Just who's relying on bogus authority here?

    Belief in free will naturally arises whenever the background belief
    system declares that all is controlled by some all-pervasive X, whether
    X be some omnipotent being or some crackpot scientific theory. Either
    way, something has to give when the current mythology directly contradicts
    the direct first person evidence every person has access to.

    Stop telling me my actions are absolutely determined by the {Great Turtle,
    YHWH, bumps on my head, mechanistic determinism, environment+heredity} 
    and I'll stop saying "baloney".

-michael