[extropy-chat] Best To Regard Free Will as Existing

[Thomas]

A B wrote:

>Hi Thomas,
>
>Could you somehow rephrase your objection/question,
>
I took issue with the idea that "free will" means something akin to 
having or becoming a fairy godmother.  I don't think it means absolute 
free will.  I think it just reflects the advantage humans have over 
other species which don't have the rational means for such skills as 
tool making or intellectual intercourse.  It reflects the fairly 
uniquely human quality of having a wide range of rational means for 
survival -- whereas, less "free" species are limited to genetically 
determined hard wired behavior patterns.  

If people do not "commonly interpret" free will as I do, then I can 
understand your dislike for the term.  It would, indeed, seem nigh to 
meaningless.  How can self determinism supplant other deteriminism 
without vanishing other?  That sounds like irrational solipsism.  

I hope I expressed myself better this time.  I really intended to put 
forth a simpler idea of free will.  -- Thomas

>[...]
>
>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. 
>
I acknowledge that absolute free will limits itself to a fantasy (or 
maybe a virtual) world.  I prefer to define free will in the context of 
human survival on Earth.  I realize that context expands every passing 
moment, but the definition still seems useful since I believe respect 
for free will offers the best hope for human survival.  The disrespect 
it received on this list moved me to dissent.

>That's just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to
>their own.
>  
>
You are free to opine as you will, Jeffery.  And you have my respect. 
 -- Thomas

>
>--- Thomas <Thomas at thomasoliver.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>A B wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>One of the simplest reasons I tend to dislike the
>>>      
>>>
>>idea
>>    
>>
>>>of the possibility of "free will" is that it seems,
>>>under any conceivable circumstances, to be so
>>>      
>>>
>>severely
>>    
>>
>>>and arbitrarily limited. ... Okay, I "will" to win
>>>      
>>>
>>200
>>    
>>
>>>million dollars tommorow...
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That sounds more like whimsy than will.  A rational
>>will would include a 
>>context.  Are *free* and *rational* not compatible? 
>>-- Thomas
>>
>>    
>>