I just typed out a long thing about this, but then I remembered other blogs where people debated FOREVER about free will versus determinism, and I think they are just debating about semantics and not getting much done...

I feel the biggest problem faced by the evolutionary theorists mentioned above is that they probably have PhDs from doing things like research and writing papers about SCIENTIFIC stuff, and then they try to dabble in moral philosophy and they just inherit inadequate definitions of free will from moral philosophers. If philosophy cannot adequately define free will, why are we expecting evolutionary scientists to apply the term in a productive way, or at least a way that won't cause people to argue about it till the cows come home?

If crazy-good philosophers can't stop people from arguing about it, an evolutionary scientist trying to tackle the issue decisively and finally would probably be an exercise in futility.

I think the closer we are to losing our ego, the more free will we have.

Either way we are all owned by fear of death (or let's say pain, as people escaping the twin towers chose to jump rather than burn).

To really be free, you would have to not fear death, but then you'd also be dead, and alas "not free". Catch 22.

What's worth dying for? With no need for virgin wives, for me it would probably be the safety of my unborn children. As that's deeply programmed in me for survival of our species so again that's not even really my "choice".

...this is truly brilliant. It states "what is" succinctly and profoundly. I've been an evpsych researcher for 20 years at SUNY and truly appreciate your work. I plan on reading this verbatim to as many SSSM'ers as I can. Those that can't understand won't....and those that won't understand, well, I think it was Ernst Mayr that said that most scientific revolutions require the death of the "old guard." Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out how a passage like this, that would fill most with despair, leaves me feeling exhilarated.

You should read Janet Radcliffe Richards' Human Nature After Darwin on this. Her argument, which is widely accepted among professional philosophers, is that the notion of free will as traditionally conceived is incoherent and thus whether we have free will or not doesn't turn on whether EP is true or not. Moreover, there is no reason to think, in general, that cultural caused behaviours are any more "free" than ones with evolutionary roots. Check out Richards, seriously, she's a philosopher who sorts out many of these issues very well.

Oh, and "deterministic" cannot be contrasted to "dynamic". Things get to be both deterministic and dynamic...

"If there is, in reality, no free will, then the individual stands outside of judgment. Attributing responsibility to others becomes a meaningless convention that reflects only a naïve psychology of the causes of their behaviours."

Incorrect. Passing judgment and holding people responsible makes them (and others) less likely to repeat the undesired acts. It is not meaningless at all.

Badly need your help. I will put some into my telephone. So far I am listening to "I Will Touch The Sky". Help me! I can not find sites on the: Apple valley porcelain veneers. I found only this - cost of porcelain veneers in canada. South measures are usually depicted more main than expensive products for most categories. These scenes are framed to be more immediate than teeth or media because less proximity parapet is improved in sensitivity for the ice. With respect :eek:, Antonia from Republic.