[MD] Free Will

[X Acto]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:49 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Great topic Steve,
> I think Harris is drawing his conclusions based apon the application
> of the basic general primary explanation of the good, the act of preference
> to defend the notion that freewill is not present because we are composed
> of various levels of prejudical choices.

Steve:
It's not the we don't have free will. It's that free will probably
can't even mean anything. What does it mean to say that not only are
you capable of acting out your will but that on top of that your will
is free? Free of what?

Ron:
Free of biological and social dominance, free to exercise  dynamic choice.
To a value based point of view but to a objectective or subjective point
of view the concept of feewill is meaningless when coupled with the idea
that all of our behaviour is determined.

So you are saying that we do have freewill but it doesent mean anything.

But 
That which doesent mean anything doesent exist.

Ron:
> It seems illogical to base the assertion of no choice in the act of choice.
> If we exist in the eternal action of choice we exist in the eternal action of
> freewill.

Steve:
Harris is not saying that we have no choice. The question is where do
choices come from?

Ron:
Harris suggests that choices come from learned behaviour and instinct and 
that it is an illusion to think that any of the choices we make are not 
dependant
on those sets of values, and I say it leaves out the possibility for change and
evolution. He is using the concept of evolution to reduce the meaning of 
freewill
but reducing freewill undercuts the concept of evolution.




>
> The philosophic consequences are far reaching and I'm not sure Harris
> has weighed this out entirely.
>
> It weakens the explanation for change in experience and supports a static
> existential meaninglessness toward the good.

Steve:
Whether we like the consequences of believing in free will or denying
it's coherence as a concept is beside the point of whether or not free
will is intelligible.

Ron:
Beside the point? hell that IS the point, belief is action. To believe in it IS
to render it intelligible. 

If all reality is a moral act, then freewill must be inteligible.

Ron:
> Not to mention is seems to be detremental to the arguement of evolution
> and natural selection.

Steve:
How so?

Ron:
If all behaviour and choice is determined it does not leave much room for the
ability to adapt to a changing environment.

Determinism ignores the dynamic.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;