I’m avoiding the term “free will” here because experience shows that using that term turns into a debate about the definition. I prefer to say we’re all just particles bumping around. Personally, I don’t see how any of those particles, no matter how they are arranged, can sometimes choose to ignore the laws of physics and go their own way.
For purely practical reasons, the legal system assigns “fault” to some actions and excuses others. We don’t have a good alternative to that system. But since we are all a bunch of particles bumping around according to the laws of physics (or perhaps the laws of our programmers) there is no sense of “fault” that is natural to the universe.
I prefer to say we’re all just particles bumping around. Personally, I don’t see how any of those particles, no matter how they are arranged, can sometimes choose to ignore the laws of physics and go their own way.
I personally can’t see how a monkey turns into a human. But that’s irrelevant because that is not the claim of natural selection. This makes a strawman of most positions that endorse something approximately like free will. Also:
For purely practical reasons, the legal system assigns “fault” to some actions and excuses others.
Just the legal system? Gah. Everybody on earth does this about 200 times a day.
I personally can’t see how a monkey turns into a human. But that’s irrelevant because that is not the claim of natural selection. This makes a strawman of most positions that endorse something approximately like free will.
I don’t think that most positions that endorse free will don’t believe at all that evolution happens.
When it comes to contempory philosophers I think a minority of those who advocate for the existence of free will deny evolution.
I know. I was making an analogy between a strawman of NS and a strawman of free will. Please read the “this” in “This makes a strawman” as referring to the OP.
Slightly edited from Scott Adams’ blog.
And a similar sentiment from SMBC comics.
I personally can’t see how a monkey turns into a human. But that’s irrelevant because that is not the claim of natural selection. This makes a strawman of most positions that endorse something approximately like free will. Also:
Just the legal system? Gah. Everybody on earth does this about 200 times a day.
I don’t think that most positions that endorse free will don’t believe at all that evolution happens.
When it comes to contempory philosophers I think a minority of those who advocate for the existence of free will deny evolution.
I know. I was making an analogy between a strawman of NS and a strawman of free will. Please read the “this” in “This makes a strawman” as referring to the OP.