On 16 mei, 04:11, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <pba...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:d90c1d20-a7fc-45fb-b723-d457a2f9b650@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 mei, 06:01, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "Art" <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>news:482a5033$0$4103$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>ITHINK THIS LOOKS
BETTER
> >> DELETED
>
> >> I'm actually sincerely interested in how brain waves cause "thoughts"
> >> maybe
> >> homo***uality and bigotry can be cured. Of course that raises ethical
> >> questions about free will and stuff.
>
> > I do not think there are any brain "waves"
> > As I said the brain works chemically not electromagneticly.
> > And the electrochemical events do not "cause" thoughts,
> > those which represent the consciouss part of it "are" thoughts.
>
> > There is nothing ethical about free will.
> > Someone who may or may not commit a crime because of free will, does
> > not belong in jail more than someone who can't help commit crimes. If
> > the crime is serious enough, it is the compulsive murderer that should
> > be put away!
>
> > Of course people with ethics may be compulsive good-guys.
> > Compulsive good-guys should inherit the earth, shouldn't they?
>
> > I will now go back to your previous post.
>
> > Peter van Velzen
> > May 2008
> > Amstelveen
> > The Netherlands
>
> Oh ok the electrochemical events then. Yep I agree anyone who commits a
> crime belongs in jail but they were still acting on there free will when
> they committed that crime. The fact that they are consequences to your
> actions in my view doesn't prove there isn't free will.
What would free will mean?
Making choices without due motive?
That would be like throwing the dice!
When there are choices to be made,
that means that different motives would lead to different choices.
In such case the strongest coalition of motives would force it's
choice through,
and in most cases the outcome is predetermined.
I suspect that people who talk about free will,
mainly mean cases in which self-interest would sup****t one choice,
whle morality would require one to choose the opposit.
However there still would be little freedom of choice.
When self-interest would be to stronger force, it would win the
struggle
when morality would be stronger that would decide the outcome.
However compulsive behaviour might be neither in ones self-interest
nor moral and still decide the outcome because of it's greater
strenght.
(one might smoke a sigaret both harming oneself and the people close
by)
There are instances - like right now, when I wonder what to say to you
next - that we do not have an automatic choice. That would seem to us
like a decision that could be made with free will. But alas, it is
just undeciveness. And the the outcome can only be one thing (what I
just wrote down:-)
It seems to me that free will is just fiction.
However it can be a usefull fiction, in as much that there might be
instances when coalitions of motives are about even and an extra
motivation - like you telling me to behave morally - might tip the
scales - It is usefull that you suppose that I have free will, for
then you would not hesitate to give me advice, while if you think I
have none, you might refrain fro throwing in your two bits, and I
might end up making an unwanted (from your viewpoint) decission.
So even if we have no free will, or decision making can be influenced
by thoughts of another person. I remember specifically that my
decission to give up my belief in an alllmighty diety was triggered by
a letter I received from the editor of a Roman Catholic Weekly. There
was no free will involved (I actually did not want to give up my
belief), but without that letter I might have kept my belief at least
a little longer.
Peter van Velzen
Atheist since 1980
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
|
