Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!nntp.coast.net!torn!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Free Will
Message-ID: <DMBpBr.27s@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4du5gq$tj@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4ermqk$jms@dogbert.ipa.net> <DM5voM.DAA@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <31159b26.28745489@198.6.245.100>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:04:39 GMT
Lines: 59
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:37430 comp.ai:36758 sci.philosophy.meta:24217

In article <31159b26.28745489@198.6.245.100>,
David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <dweldon@erinet.com> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) wrote:
>
>}In article <4ermqk$jms@dogbert.ipa.net>, Lee Kent <ntc@ipa.net> wrote:
>}>Take the following scenario:
>}>
>}>Man A believes there is no free will.
>}>Man B believes there is free will.
>}>Both have beliefs and from them make conclusions.
>}>A conclusion from belief alone is a choice made on a faith of one or
>}>the other perceived viewpoint. Just like the theorist who believes his
>}>theory and therefore draws conclusions from it that are based in
>}>belief and not law. 
>}>In effect:
>}>Both have proven the concept of free will.
>}>One with the intent to exercise it to disprove it.
>}>The other with the intent to exercise it to prove it.
>}>Yet neither will agree they act from the same cause.
>}>Which itself is a result they both experience in
>}>different perspectives.
>}
>}I am sorry I cannot see any free will above. Both A and B act on the basis of 
>}their beliefs, they do not have any choice. A will conclude something because 
>}she/he believes there is no free will, B  will conclude something else because 
>}she/he believs that there is free will. They have not chosen their beliefs,
>}have they? 
>Why not?

Because without this assumption we get into an infinite recursion.

>}There is of course a problem if a 'belief' has a physical manifestation. If
>}you claim that it does not, then you are a dualist and the discussion ends
>}right here, since there is no rational justification for dualism, it is 
>}a matter of a belief :-). If a 'belief' has a physical manifestation, then
>}of course the choice above is physically determined.
>}
>I am surprised at you.  Why do you allow youself to discuss

Freedom of speech ;-)?

>a concept such as "free will" without first noting that it
>is a concept with legal or phjilosophical connotations that
>have nothing whatever to do with the scientific notion of
>determinism (determinism itself has two connotations--one
>legal, the other scientific).
>
This is what I have been trying to indicate to the original poster - that
there is no room for the concept of "free will" in science (compatibilist 
notion of "free will" excepted). Whether it has philosophical connotations
depends of course on how you treat philosophy - as something dealing
with physical reality or not. The latter case is of no interest to me here.

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
