I’m not going to pretend that i’m close enough to that class on Free-will i took as an undergrad to give the argument convincingly, but i do recall that there are some pretty good arguments for why Free will and deterministic fate aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive (the introduction of 2nd order volitions, as I recall, was quite compelling . . i think it was G.E.M. Ancomb, but i could be wrong– its been a while).

in point of fact, if we’re to assume that we’ve created a fully free-willed, Turing-test-passing, Data-from-star-trek-like robot, i’d assert that we’ve probably proven something like compatiblism: this robot seems, to me, to be something that can make its own choices AND be programed to want to be the type of being to chose those choices (eg, have second order volitions).

If you claim, intellectually, not to believe in free will, you still act as if you have it don’t you? Intellectually, I recognize free will as likely a mythology. But I still have the illusion of it and I believe that illusion wholeheartedly. I’m fairly sure eveyone does. Free will is alot more fundamental to your existence, and I think this argument is saying that this would destroy that illusion.

I guess all I’m saying here is that there is a difference between the illusion of free will and the belief in free will, and I think the religion analogy is misplaced, since I would maintain that even if you claim to not have the belief in free will you cannot possibly shake the illusion. Thankfully, it’s much easier to shake the belief in god.