Group: sci.med.psychobiology
Dialog and news in psychiatry and psychobiology.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
some implications of free will
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:30:29 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Fuck--
see, you know I am right and it disturbs you to the point you use
profanity and become a thug and a hoodlum, you have gotten to the point
where you would rather be a hoodlum then admit someone else is right and
risk having them drive for a minute
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:30:29 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Fuck--
see, you know I am right and it disturbs you to the point you use
profanity and become a thug and a hoodlum, you have gotten to the point
where you would rather be a hoodlum then admit someone else is right and
risk having them drive for a minute
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
Dale Kelly wrote:
> see, you know I am right and it disturbs you to the point you use
> profanity and become a thug and a hoodlum, you have gotten to the point
> where you would rather be a hoodlum then admit someone else is right and
> risk having them drive for a minute
If someone gets in your car who is ranting nonsensically in neverending
run-on sentences, you would be an idiot to let them drive.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Hey, take it easy on Foreman. He's playing with one lobe tied behind
his back.' --Dr Gregory House
Dale Kelly wrote:
> see, you know I am right and it disturbs you to the point you use
> profanity and become a thug and a hoodlum, you have gotten to the point
> where you would rather be a hoodlum then admit someone else is right and
> risk having them drive for a minute
If someone gets in your car who is ranting nonsensically in neverending
run-on sentences, you would be an idiot to let them drive.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Hey, take it easy on Foreman. He's playing with one lobe tied behind
his back.' --Dr Gregory House
Re: some implications of free will
On 3 Apr., 00:03, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
> upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
> while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
Are you especially stupid or something? Just because a claim was made
long time ago doen't mean than it must be accepted without any
evidence.
J.O:
On 3 Apr., 00:03, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> wrong, emergent behaviorists seek to start a new science, the onus is
> upon THEM to make a change, the idea of a soul has been around a long
> while, the new kid on the block must prove himself, put up or shut up
Are you especially stupid or something? Just because a claim was made
long time ago doen't mean than it must be accepted without any
evidence.
J.O:
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
actually true or not. Nor would you have any way to determine it for
yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
you believe.
So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
says in response they were merely compelled to say.
Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
or isn't right).
Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Fred Weiss
On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
actually true or not. Nor would you have any way to determine it for
yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
you believe.
So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
says in response they were merely compelled to say.
Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
or isn't right).
Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Fred Weiss
Re: some implications of free will
"Fred Weiss" <fredweiss@papertig,com > wrote in message
news:1175556298.787332.325420@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
|
| > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
|
| How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
| or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
| anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
| outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
| actually true or not. Nor would you have any way to determine it for
| yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
| you believe.
|
| So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
|
| Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
| says in response they were merely compelled to say.
|
| Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
| or isn't right).
|
| Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Exactly. The point of this discussion is the same as the point of doing a
crossword. It's just a game and people like to play.
"The opposite of a trival truth is false. The opposite of a profound
truth is also true."
-Niels Bohr
"Fred Weiss" <fredweiss@papertig,com > wrote in message
news:1175556298.787332.325420@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
| On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
|
| > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
|
| How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
| or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
| anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
| outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
| actually true or not. Nor would you have any way to determine it for
| yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
| you believe.
|
| So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
|
| Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
| says in response they were merely compelled to say.
|
| Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
| or isn't right).
|
| Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Exactly. The point of this discussion is the same as the point of doing a
crossword. It's just a game and people like to play.
"The opposite of a trival truth is false. The opposite of a profound
truth is also true."
-Niels Bohr
Re: some implications of free will
On 2 Apr 2007 16:24:58 -0700, "Fred Weiss"
<fredweiss@papertig,com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
> How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
it exists.
Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
> or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
> anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
> outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
> actually true or not.
Exactly. As far as I know there is no evidence that suggests
otherwise.
> Nor would you have any way to determine it for
> yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
> you believe.
Very true. I am the sum total of all that has gone before me that
effects me, starting with the Big Bang. As far as I know I have no
"free will," and if I do have "free will" then I do not know how
to know if I do or not.
This sorry state of affairs applies to everyone else, of course.
> So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
There is none, and I concede your point 100%.
> Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
> says in response they were merely compelled to say.
>
> Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
> or isn't right).
>
> Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
>
> Fred Weiss
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I may be dead, but I'm still pretty." -- Buffy
On 2 Apr 2007 16:24:58 -0700, "Fred Weiss"
<fredweiss@papertig,com > wrote:
> On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
> How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
it exists.
Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
> or anything else for that matter? If we have no free will than
> anything I say on the subject will simply be the product of forces
> outside of my control and there will be no way to know if it is
> actually true or not.
Exactly. As far as I know there is no evidence that suggests
otherwise.
> Nor would you have any way to determine it for
> yourself because you are equally compelled to believe whatever it is
> you believe.
Very true. I am the sum total of all that has gone before me that
effects me, starting with the Big Bang. As far as I know I have no
"free will," and if I do have "free will" then I do not know how
to know if I do or not.
This sorry state of affairs applies to everyone else, of course.
> So the point of this discussion is what exactly?
There is none, and I concede your point 100%.
> Rhetorical question of course since anything you say, I say, or anyone
> says in response they were merely compelled to say.
>
> Right? (Rhetorical again, because you have no way of knowing what is
> or isn't right).
>
> Etc. etc. ad infinitum.
>
> Fred Weiss
--
http :// desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I may be dead, but I'm still pretty." -- Buffy
Re: some implications of free will
Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote in
news:85f313hgcm3c0lp2aesnot2hgouqf3e00j@4ax,com :
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
Easily done.
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
> as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
> always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
> therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
Well, you're mistaken on two counts. First, not all events have known causes.
All *effects* follow causes, of course, but that is merely a tautology, since
we must know an event's cause before we call it an "effect." But any claim
that all events have causes is gratuitous, and indeed false.
Secondly, there is no conflict between causality and free will in the first
place. Free will is simply the thesis that human behavior (and the behavior
of many animals) is not predictable from factors external to the acting
agent. It is usually caused by internal factors, however, e.g., desires,
goals, beliefs, etc. And if it not predictable based on those external
factors, then claiming that it is "caused" by them is also gratuitous.
Desertphile <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote in
news:85f313hgcm3c0lp2aesnot2hgouqf3e00j@4ax,com :
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
Easily done.
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
> as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
> always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
> therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
Well, you're mistaken on two counts. First, not all events have known causes.
All *effects* follow causes, of course, but that is merely a tautology, since
we must know an event's cause before we call it an "effect." But any claim
that all events have causes is gratuitous, and indeed false.
Secondly, there is no conflict between causality and free will in the first
place. Free will is simply the thesis that human behavior (and the behavior
of many animals) is not predictable from factors external to the acting
agent. It is usually caused by internal factors, however, e.g., desires,
goals, beliefs, etc. And if it not predictable based on those external
factors, then claiming that it is "caused" by them is also gratuitous.
Re: some implications of free will
"Desertphile" <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:85f313hgcm3c0lp2aesnot2hgouqf3e00j@4ax,com ...
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
Easily done.
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
> as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
> always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
> therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
Well, you're mistaken on two counts. First, not all events have known
causes.
All *effects* follow causes, of course, but that is merely a tautology,
since
we must know an event's cause before we call it an "effect." But any claim
that all events have causes is gratuitous, and indeed false.
Secondly, there is no conflict between causality and free will in the first
place. Free will is simply the thesis that human behavior (and the behavior
of many animals) is not predictable from factors external to the acting
agent. It is usually caused by internal factors, however, e.g., desires,
goals, beliefs, etc. And if it not predictable based on those external
factors, then claiming that it is "caused" by them is also gratuitous.
"Desertphile" <desertphile@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:85f313hgcm3c0lp2aesnot2hgouqf3e00j@4ax,com ...
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
Easily done.
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far
> as anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect
> always follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is
> therefore the default paradigm that nothing has "free will."
Well, you're mistaken on two counts. First, not all events have known
causes.
All *effects* follow causes, of course, but that is merely a tautology,
since
we must know an event's cause before we call it an "effect." But any claim
that all events have causes is gratuitous, and indeed false.
Secondly, there is no conflict between causality and free will in the first
place. Free will is simply the thesis that human behavior (and the behavior
of many animals) is not predictable from factors external to the acting
agent. It is usually caused by internal factors, however, e.g., desires,
goals, beliefs, etc. And if it not predictable based on those external
factors, then claiming that it is "caused" by them is also gratuitous.
Re: some implications of free will
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
free will and soul is a BETTER answer
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
free will and soul is a BETTER answer
--
Dale
http :// www .vedantasite.org
Re: some implications of free will
On 3 Apr., 05:49, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> > anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> > follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> > paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
>
> where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> free will and soul is a BETTER answer
I'll refrain to comment on whether it's a better answer. I'll just
observere that given your definitions of free will and soul it's a
religious answer (not scientific).
J.O.
On 3 Apr., 05:49, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> > anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> > follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> > paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
>
> where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> free will and soul is a BETTER answer
I'll refrain to comment on whether it's a better answer. I'll just
observere that given your definitions of free will and soul it's a
religious answer (not scientific).
J.O.
Date: 06 Apr 2007, 00:52
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 3, 4:48 am, jenspol...@hotmail,com wrote:
> On 3 Apr., 05:49, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > > Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> > > anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> > > follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> > > paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
>
> > where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> > that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> > must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> > too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> > and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> > interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> > free will and soul is a BETTER answer
>
> I'll refrain to comment on whether it's a better answer. I'll just
> observere that given your definitions of free will and soul it's a
> religious answer (not scientific).
>
> J.O.
A pallet of Happy Frog can do wonders for my ladies.
On Apr 3, 4:48 am, jenspol...@hotmail,com wrote:
> On 3 Apr., 05:49, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:37:18 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > > Humans have had billions of observations of the world and so far as
> > > anyone knows we live in a clock-work universe where effect always
> > > follows cause (ignoring sub-atomic physics). It is therefore the default
> > > paradigm that nothing has "free will."--
>
> > where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> > that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> > must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> > too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> > and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> > interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> > free will and soul is a BETTER answer
>
> I'll refrain to comment on whether it's a better answer. I'll just
> observere that given your definitions of free will and soul it's a
> religious answer (not scientific).
>
> J.O.
A pallet of Happy Frog can do wonders for my ladies.
Re: some implications of free will
Dale Kelly wrote:
> where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> free will and soul is a BETTER answer
Have you ever heard of something called a 'period'? The British call it
a 'full stop'? It ends something called a 'sentence'?
Try it sometime.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Hey, take it easy on Foreman. He's playing with one lobe tied behind
his back.' --Dr Gregory House
Dale Kelly wrote:
> where does a soul that has existed for all time that begets causes, deny
> that effects must have causes except for origins that in ALL explanations
> must admit that even a first cause is an effect, and must have a cause
> too, leading to an infinite regress and continuum of cause and effect,
> and not a first cause, where does the concept of free will, or a soul,
> interupt these facts, moreso, in starting chains of cause and effect, a
> free will and soul is a BETTER answer
Have you ever heard of something called a 'period'? The British call it
a 'full stop'? It ends something called a 'sentence'?
Try it sometime.
--
--Sean
http :// spclsd223.livejournal,com /
'Hey, take it easy on Foreman. He's playing with one lobe tied behind
his back.' --Dr Gregory House
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 2, 10:37 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2007 16:24:58 -0700, "Fred Weiss"
>
> <fredwe...@papertig,com > wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
> > How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
>
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
But my point is that it *can't* be shown because any attempt to show
it uses and presupposes it, i.e. affirms it.
It would be like asking to prove that consciousness exists. Ummm...and
what am I supposed to use to provide that proof?
Fred Weiss
On Apr 2, 10:37 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2007 16:24:58 -0700, "Fred Weiss"
>
> <fredwe...@papertig,com > wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 1:12 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > > ...you must first show that "free will" exists...
> > How do you propose that be done if we have no free will to show it -
>
> Greetings and that is an excellent question. My answer is "I do
> not have to show it:" it is for proponants of "free will" to show
> it exists.
But my point is that it *can't* be shown because any attempt to show
it uses and presupposes it, i.e. affirms it.
It would be like asking to prove that consciousness exists. Ummm...and
what am I supposed to use to provide that proof?
Fred Weiss
Re: some implications of free will
Op Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:37:56 -0500, schreef Dale Kelly:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
>
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
We do have choice to a degree - but our choices in any given situation
are mostly limited. So our so-called "free will" is not truly free
(unrestricted) in that respect. Depends on your personality and a lot of
other factors. For some people engaging in a fist fight is never an
option, others have trouble staying away from the excitement.
Op Mon, 02 Apr 2007 11:37:56 -0500, schreef Dale Kelly:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
>
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
We do have choice to a degree - but our choices in any given situation
are mostly limited. So our so-called "free will" is not truly free
(unrestricted) in that respect. Depends on your personality and a lot of
other factors. For some people engaging in a fist fight is never an
option, others have trouble staying away from the excitement.
Re: some implications of free will
On Apr 2, 12:37 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
>
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
>
> if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
> robots, more like plants than animals
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
What about the possibility that were merely are our central nervous
system. Then the central nervous system could have free will insofar
as it does everything it wants. And what your nervous system wants is
based on physical contraints. You are talking as if you and your
central nervous system and you were two different things. When you
refer to yourself you are refering to a soul(or soul like entity)
rather than a organism. Thus your argument is: Since I am a soul
there must be a soul. And sure, maybe you are a soul. But your
argument is not going to convince anyone because its conclusion is
contained in the premise. Just out of curiosity: What is your faith?
On Apr 2, 12:37 pm, Dale Kelly <dale.ke...@comcast,net > wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:30:56 -0600, Desertphile wrote:
> > Please show evidence that free will exists. Thank you.--
>
> we observe people to make choices ALL the time, and we hold them
> personally responsible for these choices, why would there exist a legal
> system that holds people responsible for our choices, if we truly do not
> have choice?
>
> if we didn't have choice, we would all walk around like programmed
> robots, more like plants than animals
>
> --
> Dale http :// www .vedantasite.org
What about the possibility that were merely are our central nervous
system. Then the central nervous system could have free will insofar
as it does everything it wants. And what your nervous system wants is
based on physical contraints. You are talking as if you and your
central nervous system and you were two different things. When you
refer to yourself you are refering to a soul(or soul like entity)
rather than a organism. Thus your argument is: Since I am a soul
there must be a soul. And sure, maybe you are a soul. But your
argument is not going to convince anyone because its conclusion is
contained in the premise. Just out of curiosity: What is your faith?
