<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><BR><DIV><DIV>On Apr 5, 2007, at 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BR><BR><DIV><SPAN class="gmail_quote">On 4/6/07, <B class="gmail_sendername">scerir</B> <<A href="mailto:scerir@libero.it">scerir@libero.it</A>> wrote:</SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Stathis Papaioannou:<BR>> A non-believer in free will can still go along with the law as something<BR>> which is instrumental in bringing about the determined behaviours. We put<BR>> roofs on our houses in order to stay dry, and we stay dry because the <BR>roofs<BR>> are in place. Similarly, we punish criminals to prevent further crimes and<BR>> further crimes are prevented because we punish criminals. However, I keep<BR>in<BR>> mind the fact that the criminals engage in their behaviour either because <BR>it<BR>> is determined by their genes and environment (in which case it isn't their<BR>> fault) or due to random processes (in which case it isn't their fault).<BR>> Blaming and revenge are in keeping with a belief in free will; tolerance <BR>and<BR>> compassion are in keeping with the absence of such a belief, although<BR>> tolerance and compassion do not prevent us from taking practical measures<BR>to<BR>> prevent crimes.<BR><BR>I tend to agree here. But I think the criminals <BR>engage in their behaviour also because it is<BR>determined by their 'will', and not just by<BR>their genes or by contextuality.</BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR>Isn't their will determined by their genes and environment? What other factors could possibly be at play? <BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>Nope. At least people as far as we can reasonably tell with nearly identical genes and environments turn out so differently that you would have to believe the flutter of a butterflies wing causes a typhoon on the other side of the world. It is not reasonable to prattle on about physics being physics when the system or behaviors being studied cannot be fruitfully and practically analyzed, understood or predicted at such a level. </DIV><DIV><BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV></DIV><DIV><BR>Some people find a place for free will in indeterminacy, perhaps the indeterminacy in QM (or at least the CI of QM). But at best, that means free will is *randomness*, and why should we be any happier to believe that our behaviour is random than that it is determined? <BR><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV><DIV>At the point you choose from among alternatives you are exercising free will. I will not dance on the head of some philosophical pin that a sufficiently powerful and near all knowing mind could predict with perfect accuracy how you will choose in any situation. It has nothing to do with behavior being either random or determined. That false dichotomy is fruitless to pursue. Something more fruitful as how we can choose thee best values and exercise the best decision making process in our choices that maximize our gaining and keeping those values. The rest seems to me a colossal waste of (for now) all too limited time.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>- s</DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>