RE: Decision theory

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:05:07 -0000

I am no solipsist: I believe that lots of things exist, including a variety
of components we commonly call a 'self' or 'atman'. What I am saying is
that the free will paradox arises because of the false assumption that there
exists an independent, unitary 'self'. This 'self' is actually a composite
thing comprising, for example, a set of relationships with 'past'
environments. What does it mean for this 'self' to 'choose'? What does it
mean for my car to 'choose' to break down?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gale [SMTP:wmgale.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: 06 January 1999 16:52
> To: Higgo James
> Cc: 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> Subject: Re: Decision theory
>
> Higgo James wrote:
> >
> > Free will requires a will to be free, and a will requires a self. As
> there
> > is no such thing as a self, there can be no such thing as free will.
>
> Then feel "free" to call this by any name you wish. I'm after an
> externally
> determinable feature, not an internal one. Do you have a meaning for
> "exist"
> such that you are willing to say that electrons exist and that people
> exist?
> I am after a property that electrons can be shown not to have and that
> people
> can be shown to have.
>
> If your views of the world do not include "exist" as a meaningful
> verb, then there does indeed seem little more to speak of.
>
> Gale
Received on Wed Jan 06 1999 - 09:09:34 PST