(October 2, 2013 at 3:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: Because nobody can be free of deterministic influences, which necessarily means they cannot have done other than they have done. If you cannot do other than you have done, you didn't have free will.
That's your definition of free-will. Which I don't regard as actual free-will.
(October 2, 2013 at 3:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: It's your analogy, not mine. But I think it accurately represents your view-- the brain is a machine which takes input, processes it, and outputs behaviors. Is this not your view?
Nope.
(October 2, 2013 at 3:02 am)bennyboy Wrote: This is inaccurate. In your view, the self is one link in a causal chain starting with events external to a body, and ending with the body acting in some way on its environment. Saying it's an agent is like saying the transmission of a car is an agent in converting foot presses on the gas pedal into acceleration of the car. Calling part of that process "self" doesn't change the fact that it's simply a machine for translating controlling inputs to mechanical outputs.
Wrong. The two cases are not equivalent because of the existence of self-awareness and self-reflection functions. These functions are present in the person - which makes it an agent. It is absent in the car-transmission, which makes it a non-agent.
