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