[extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing
austriaaugust at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 5 03:41:33 UTC 2007
Could you somehow rephrase your objection/question,
I'm afraid I don't really understand it. Exceptional
reading comprehension is not one of my strengths.
The point that I'm trying to make is that if "free
will" (as it is commonly interpreted) really exists
(which I don't believe at all) then perhaps we should
all acknowledge that it is quite limited (severely in
my opinion). If it were not limited, I would have
everything I've ever wanted, no matter how
fantastical. Furthermore, these severe limitations
appear to me to be so numerous and arbitrary that they
reduce the meaning of "free will" to the point of
being meaningless; because "free will" doesn't exist.
That's just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to
--- Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
> A B wrote:
> >One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the
> >of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
> >under any conceivable circumstances, to be so
> >and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win
> >million dollars tommorow...
> >Best Wishes,
> >Jeffrey Herrlich
> That sounds more like whimsy than will. A rational
> will would include a
> context. Are *free* and *rational* not compatible?
> -- Thomas
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
More information about the extropy-chat