Posted: Oct 02, 2010 4:39 pm
Genesforlife and OldSkeptic, I am also familiar with the theory of repeated exposure (regarding attachment, which some mistake for love). Golden Rule love can be practiced without any sort of attachment, and in the face of it, especially if we are aware of all of that. We're really talking apples and oranges here (they are both fruit that nourish the body, but still very different). Having a limited (or compulsive) set of options or possible motivations does not mean a choice is never self-determined (many learn to overcome their compulsions), and affirming free will is not affirming that all thought/behavior is self-determined (it does leave room for instinct). If you were to provide evidence that certain non-human animals choose as freely as human animals, it would be no argument against free will, only an argument in favor of the free will of those non-human animals. What you call "genetic constraints" of "decision making machinery"--I call being wired for choice (Sartre called it being "condemned to be free"). I will totally grant that we are not free to choose among options of which we are not aware, but that is saying something about freedom, not free will. Free will is the ability to choose among the options of which we ARE aware. We can say that others are more or less free, but we cannot say they do not have free will. That is why education is so darn important. If we didn't have free will, education would increase no one's freedom.
hotshoe--wikipedia (or any other source you can name) is not neutral.
trubble--lol...I do not reject science.
Shrunk--I never claim Greene supports my argument, and the quote on there being a first cycle is relevant to my argument. You would be surprised how many people think the cyclic model is the only path to an eternal universe. I used to think that, before reading Greene. People oughtta know.
Bud's Brain--"right"..."true"...six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Time to resign again. Thanks for the invigorating discussion
You're a fun group and you keep me on my toes. Hope you'll submit something to the carnival.
hotshoe--wikipedia (or any other source you can name) is not neutral.
trubble--lol...I do not reject science.
Shrunk--I never claim Greene supports my argument, and the quote on there being a first cycle is relevant to my argument. You would be surprised how many people think the cyclic model is the only path to an eternal universe. I used to think that, before reading Greene. People oughtta know.
Bud's Brain--"right"..."true"...six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Time to resign again. Thanks for the invigorating discussion
You're a fun group and you keep me on my toes. Hope you'll submit something to the carnival.