[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

I didn't mean to be rude, and reply without a greeting.  I am too preoccupied with a difficult task.  Your questions are always welcome.   


Marsha 





On May 1, 2011, at 3:23 PM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> On May 1, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marsha (Steve quoted)  --
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:13 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Isn't free will dependent on causation, and isn't causation,
>>> in the MoQ, an explanatory extension of a pattern?
>> 
>> [Steve]:
>>> Yes, causation is understood as a stable pattern of preference,
>>> B routinely values precondition A. Further, B literally IS a set
>>> of such preferences.
>> 
>> [Marsha, on 5/1]:
>>> I un-ask the question.   Wherever those preferences lie,
>>> they do not inherently exist.
>> 
>> Whoa!  Hold on there, Marsha.  You have a valid point that deserves a better answer than Steve provided.  The causation argument is superficial at best, besides which cause-and-effect is only man's way of interpreting events as sequential in time.  As a consequence, you have been led to the depressing conclusion that preference is deterministic.
> 
> Marsha:
> Been a long time since I read Hume, but there still doesn't seem to be anything found to represent 'cause.'  Causal explanation is based on stable, predictable patterns.  There is no "autonomous homoculus' to have the "depressing conclusion that preference is deterministic."  The laws of nature are also useful static patterns of value, explanatorily useful patterns.   
> 
>