<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/6/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">scerir</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</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><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I always found difficult to define 'free will'.<br>There are several definitions. My personal
<br>definition was something like 'the 'will' does<br>not depend on the past story of (this) universe'.<br>After some reflection I also wrote 'the 'will'<br>does not depend both on the past story and on the
<br>future story of (this) universe'. This definition<br>seems to be strong indeed :-) and perhaps also<br>false and useless :-)</blockquote><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?