[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
I think I understand Free Will better than you think you do.
Uh... from your posts, I am confident that you don't. Trust me on this one, DV.
My first degree is in philosophy where my focus was logic, philosophy of mind, with several
courses to do with philosophy of language. Several of the madatory courses address the topic
of free will, so, as you might guess, this sort is something that I do understand quite well.
And since I have a great interest in free will and related concepts, I have studied much on this
topic, and have read many a paper from professors with much greater knowledge than both you and I.
DV, my recommendation to you, is to take some philosophy courses, read some solid articles on
these topics. (And google searches DO NOT count. Lotta garbage out there in internet land.)
You seem to enjoy this sort of thing, so might as well become educated in it, no?
Back to the discussion...
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
Let's look at your analogy...you claim that saying your name or dying is a CHOICE. While technically correct,
you are missing the details...something you claim I dwell on.
DV, DV, DV, technically correct sounds quite logical, no? Are you saying that my comment was technically correct,
yet still incorrect? Logic would seem more about technically correct, no? I mean, consider the following:
I am a person with two arms and two legs. Healthy and well. Now, if I stand up and say, "I have one arm".
Is that statement true? Many people would argue that it is not true since, in fact, I have two arms. They might argue
that there is an implied "only", so that what I am really saying is "I have only one arm". Incorrect. I did not say that.
In logic, all we may go by is what is at hand. If the statement is "I have one arm", then that is all we may consider. So,
whatever the cultural speech norm may be, whatever I may like it to be, or whaver else, they do not matter. "I have one arm"
is a true statement if I have at least one arm.
DV, you seem to be getting caught up in a simlar mistake, or at least in the terms. Something being an 'Ultimatum' does
not negate a 'choice'. I believe that you are trying to suggest that an ultimatum is something that takes the place of a
choice. One thing I fancy about definitions, is that they tend to make the points clear. Is not an ultimatum simply some
form of demand? Some final proposition?
Then from an ultimatum, is not some choice expected? Oh wait... it's right there in the definition. "...especially one whose
rejection will end negotiations and cause a resort to force or other direct action". So from an ultimatum it would seem
that a choice must be made, at very least to either accept or else reject the ultimatum. Whether God presented us with a choice
or an ultimatum it would seem that we have a 'real' choice.
But let's keep going...
What is this mumbo jumbo about 'sufficient' choices? Because one is 'good' and the other 'bad', entirely subjective,
then there are insufficient choices? DV, if you have choice A and B, then I do not see how you have less than sufficient choices,
whatever that means. Whatever else you bring into the discussion about one being 'good' and the other 'bad'
does not negate the choice nor the choosing.
DV, I believe that I know what you want to do. You want to conclude that since there is an ultimatum, then there is
not a 'real' choice. Perhaps you want to say that it's not fair since there is a choice to make and you don't like the options.
But that does not negate the choice, choosing, or whatever else. Perhaps you want to say that since one option is eternal
damnation, then there are not really two choices? But that is where logic, language, or whatever you name it, defeats you.
A choice is a choice, however 'good' or 'bad' it is still a choice, an option, and alternative. Similar to the "I have one arm",
you can not say that because you consider one choice 'good' and one choice 'bad', then you do not have a real choice. That is absurd.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]
So I ask you, what good is Free Will when you have a gun pointed at your head? It is a compulsion by threat, ie DURESS.
That's not acceptable in a court of law for a reason.
Compulsion and duress do not negate the choice nor the choosing. The courts may have some consideration for such
where certain actions are excusable due to duress etc. but such does not enter into logic. A choice is a choice is
a choice. Always wanted to say that. Anyway, the point of free will is that we are not robots. Robot life seems so
boring.
