[MD] Freewill

[Ian Glendinning]

Steve, dmb, Michael

Still not quite with you Steve ...

OK so we change the focus away from interminable free-will vs
determinism debates by asking a more pragmatic question like
"How do we make things better in the future?"
I'm really good with that.

But that doesn't mean
"Free will is certainly not necessary ...."

Patterns / concepts / behaviours we call our free-will are still in
that first question - in the how do "we make" things better.
It presupposes we are able "to make" things better in the world (or
fail to make ...).
We can describe / explain / name it differently in a MoQish context,
but our ability to choose what to do and act on it is still in there,
yes ?
What would you call that ? (Before we get into any moral
responsibility questions.)

This is really Michael's pragmatic Randian suggestion
... the practical situation which gives rise to the free-will concept,
however you explain or describe it.

Still losing what it is you see as dmb or (anyone else) disagreeing with.
Ian

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> HI dmb,
>
>
>> Steve said to dmb:
>> You have asserted that would need to drop the notions of blameworthiness and praiseworthiness if we drop the term "free will." But consider, where do Poincare's ideas come from? Certainly not his conscious willing of them. It is not _will_ that makes him praiseworthy as a thinker. Likewise it is not "free will" that makes bad behavior reprehensible. We simply do not need this concept to talk about morality.
>>