Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2020 sci.philosophy.tech:676 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!umn-cs!ns!ddb From: ddb@ns.ns.com (David Dyer-Bennet) Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: How to dispose of the free will issue (long) Summary: Choosing to be wrong is wrong Keywords: free will architecture terminology Message-ID: <405@ns.ns.com> Date: 11 Jul 88 19:08:42 GMT References: <483@cvaxa.sussex.ac.uk> <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Lines: 18 In article <488@aiva.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiva.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > In article <794@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >Whether or not we have free will, we should behave as if we do, > >because if we don't, it doesn't matter. > If that is true -- if it doesn't matter -- then we will do just as well > to behave as if we do not have free will. While I would prefer to avoid *ALL* errors, I'll settle for avoiding all *AVOIDABLE* erors. If I do not have free will, none of my errors are avoidable (I had no choice, right?); so I may as well remove the entire no-free-will arena from my realm of consideration. The whole concept of "choosing to believe we have no free will" is obviously bogus -- if we're choosing, then by definition we DO have free will. I understand, of course, that you all my be pre-destined not to comprehend my arguments :-) -- -- David Dyer-Bennet ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb ddb@viper.Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300