personhood

[henry quirk]

“Third option is what I've been saying. We have free will to make a prescribed set of choices from a limited set of options that we were designed for.”

That’s not free will. That’s determinism. Free will (i.e. agent causation [the only free will worth havin’]) is about sussin’ out one’s own reason (not selectin’ from a ‘menu’, or - worse - just thinkin’ one is selectin’ from a ‘menu’); free will is about bein’ a ‘cause’ and not merely an ‘effect’.

What you describe is no better than what a Rhomba or a roach does.

Now, if you wanna argue for ‘your’ limitations: have at it. Me: I’d rather argue for my (and your) options & possibilities.

#

“If you don't believe me, go ahead and sneeze with your eyes open. This should be easy for God's ordained pinnacle of creation.”

Being a free will doesn’t mean one can ignore autonomic biology (any more than a free market means everything on display is gratis).

No, I can’t stop my eyes from closing durin’ a sneeze, but I can work hard to not sneeze in the first place (avoid the dust, pepper, pollen, etc.), and when I feel a sneeze comin’ on, I can pinch my nose and mebbe stop it before it happens.

And: I never said nuthin’ about god or about people bein’ the ordained pinnacle of creation, so, outside of you paradin’ your *prejudices, I don’t know why you’d vomit that up.









*’free will’ is one of those ‘Rorschach tests’: folks tend to overlay themselves on the topic, even as they claim to be adherin’ to ‘fact’. In my experience: pro-free will folks skew toward capability, self-direction, and self-responsibility; their experience of themselves in the world is that they’re autonomous (even in constraining circumstances [especially in constraining circumstances]) and that they exercise control (over themselves, if nuthin’ else). Anti-free willers (includin’ those who see free will as ‘prescribed’ tend to, in my experience, skew in the opposite direction.