|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jun 12, 2017 11:28:30 GMT
tpfkar Nor would that be remarkable. Not that it is even necessarily possible, but in the hypothetical. Everything we do is by definition because we preferred to do it. "Free will" doesn't require incoherencies like expecting an exact being with exactly the same properties, time etc., to arbitrarily make different/random choices. "Free will" founded on deranged behaviour is a useless version of free will indeed. There is a reason for everything that happens, again nothing remarkable about that. Having "reasons", i.e. "existing" does not in any way preclude it being free will. Not having reasons would make it, colloquially, insanity.
Can neuroscience understand Donkey Kong?Free will, in the philosophical sense, is juxtaposed determinism. The classic argument, to which Erjen subscribes, is that "if not for free will, we would be automatons". And indeed, we are like extremely sophisticated automatons, as it is all basically input-output. And now Erjen will object, "no no no, each man is a free agent". But the freedom he believes we have, which conforms to the classic argument of free will, does not and cannot exist. Even if we allow for quantum physics, which suggests that some things may indeed be completely random, it doesn't help the free will argument. Randomness does not make our wills any more free, we are still slaves to the process rather than masters of it. |
|
