Free Willers of the world

[CallMeIshmael]

Im aware of just how much free will needs another thread!


I dont believe in free will, but have a couple questions for those who do:


1. What does and doesnt have free will? Is it just humans, or do other animals have it too?

Like, which of these have it:

- Monkey
- Dolphin
- Dog
- Snake
- Amoeba
- Cucumber (before being picked)
- Bacteria


2. Do we agree that you either have it, or you dont? For example, things like sight exist on a continuum. Plants grow towards light, this is very basic sight, all the way up to our sight. But, I dont think you can sort of have free will. An organism either has it, or it doesnt.


If we assume that abiogenesis is the correct explanation for life, and that some living things have free will and some dont, this means free will evolved at some point in natural history.

Does this seem to imply that something with free will was born to something without free will?

[godBoy]

I'd say it's just humans. If you know you're about to make a bad choice and you can still choose to do it.. You have free will.

2. You either have it or you don't

[CallMeIshmael]

godBoy,

Is it safe to assume that you believe humans were given free will by God?

[godBoy]

yes. But that doesn't change my statement..

If it is proven that God does not exist, I would still say that humans have free will in their ability to know and choose to do wrong.

If evolution is capable of creating this sense of morality and the ablility to know / choose wrong then it is the giver of free will.

[Darryl_P]

1. I'd say monkeys, dolphins and dogs surely have it. Snakes probably. The other three probably not.

2. Yes I agree.

3. The correlation is probably very high between having a brain and having free will. So just as some beings have brains and others don't, the question of whether something with a brain was born to something without a brain arises. Maybe the first being with a brain wasn't born with it but just grew it somehow like a rare good type of cancer. Maybe this is also how free will first came about. Who knows?

[Sephus]

w t f

[New001]

I disagree with you that we have no free will, but I'm curious to hear your argument against it.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you that we have no free will, but I'm curious to hear your argument against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm thinking it goes something like "people obey the laws of physics like everything else."

[aeest400]

My thoughts on this entirely overblown (maybe the most overblown) area of philosophical inquiry: The essence of free will is acting based on one's rationally arrived at plans. No more, no less. Quitting smoking is an example. When we do not in comformity with our plans (through reflex, instinct, or weakness of will), we are not acting "freely."

Edit: the reason being that antecedent "nonconscious" causes can be identified, at least in theory, for other types of actions. But even if our rational acts are in some sense "determined" by physical law, etc., saying they are not free in some important psychological sense is inconsistent with the standard uses of the terms "free" and "will."

[DougShrapnel]

1. everthing but the cucumber. To what extent I have no idea.

2. No will exists on a continuum. I think that some dogs exercise more free will than some people.


If you are a compatablist, i don't think I have any arguement with you. If you are more of a fatalist, thats a position that I disagree with. Freewill is an emergant phenomena arising from the abilty of one to control the input in a determinsitic world.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you that we have no free will, but I'm curious to hear your argument against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm thinking it goes something like "people obey the laws of physics like everything else."

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a weiner

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
2. No will exists on a continuum. I think that some dogs exercise more free will than some people.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible for something to have "more will." If the person has free will, it has free will. If it doesnt, it doesnt.


[ QUOTE ]
If you are a compatablist, i don't think I have any arguement with you. If you are more of a fatalist, thats a position that I disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Id same im a compatablist, but it has to do more with definitions than anything. I mean, the answer to every question of "why?" to a true fatalist is "because the big bang happened"

The reason Im posting this right now, is, in one way, because the big bang happened, but in another way, because I "decided" to post this.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: the reason being that antecedent "nonconscious" causes can be identified, at least in theory, for other types of actions. But even if our rational acts are in some sense "determined" by physical law, etc., saying they are not free in some important psychological sense is inconsistent with the standard uses of the terms "free" and "will."

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, the arugment of free will largely goes back to poor definitions.


I dont believe in free will in the sense that 'you can act apart from what your genes and environment tell you to do.' Any choice we make can be wholly attributed to our genes and our nurture, over neither of which do we have control.

However, I see the point that I can act apart from my instincts. This is a kind of 'free will,' and, again, it all depends on our definitions.


Also, I really LOLed at the posts in my OOT thread.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Edit: the reason being that antecedent "nonconscious" causes can be identified, at least in theory, for other types of actions. But even if our rational acts are in some sense "determined" by physical law, etc., saying they are not free in some important psychological sense is inconsistent with the standard uses of the terms "free" and "will."

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, the arugment of free will largely goes back to poor definitions.


I dont believe in free will in the sense that 'you can act apart from what your genes and environment tell you to do.' Any choice we make can be wholly attributed to our genes and our nurture, over neither of which do we have control.

However, I see the point that I can act apart from my instincts. This is a kind of 'free will,' and, again, it all depends on our definitions.


Also, I really LOLed at the posts in my OOT thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. I guess I don't disagree with this, so it just goes back to definitions. Thanks.

[CallMeIshmael]

We seem to kind of have skurted (sp?) around the issue that Im most interested in.


Lets, just for the sake of argument, assume there is no God. JUST ASSUME IT!!!

Also, we seem to agree that not all life has free will.



This seems to imply that one day an organism without free will gave birth to one with it, yes?

Also, somewhat ironically, it seems to imply that free will was determined to happen /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
because I "decided" to post this.

[/ QUOTE ] As I suspected, I have no argument with you.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it possible for something to have "more will."

[/ QUOTE ] Learning. If we are deciding what to have for dinner and we only have learned that Steak and Chicken are available to eat. Someone that also knows of ham, and how to fish, has increased his will. It's a trivial example. But you can extend it to all sorts of things that can learn. The reason for will, is the need to move around and control our environment. Lets not confuse power with will. I can't will myself to the moon and be a giant orange roadcone any easier than I can choose to have ham when all I learned was steak and chicken. But there are certain causal relations that the cause and effect are same, or possibly a causal loop, or possibly many different causal chains that spring into existance because it's possible.

The 2nd part is really unimportant to the disucssion. I don't have the actually mechinism for free will any more than you have the mechanism that disallows it.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have the actually mechinism for free will any more than you have the mechanism that disallows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider the mechanism by which free will (in some of its definitions) to be disallowed is the laws of physics. I believe every particle in my body is governed by the same phsyical laws that govern particles in innate matter. Do you disagree?

I also believe that all thought processes that occur in the human body to be manifestation of physical processes. Do you disagree?

[aeest400]

For me the "essence" of free will is making "decisions," which assumes the ability to "consciously" represent alternative courses of action. (Say, one in line with our instincts and one in line with what we know to represent our long-term best interests). Thus, I think free will requires a measure of consciousness. While I think monkeys and dolphins have a measure of consciousness, I'm unsure whether the possess it to the degree that they can ever be said to choose act x vs act y.

Incidentally, on my account drunk people are less "free" than sober ones. So, find that part of the brain inhibited while drunk and you have to locus of free will (at least you're in the right "area.")

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider the mechanism by which free will (in some of its definitions) to be disallowed is the laws of physics. I believe every particle in my body is governed by the same phsyical laws that govern particles in innate matter. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ] It's not that I disagree, I think this is a case of the map is not the territory.

[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that all thought processes that occur in the human body to be manifestation of physical processes. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, but the manifestations aren't the pysical process.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
For me the "essence" of free will is making "decisions," which assumes the ability to "consciously" represent alternative courses of action. (Say, one in line with our instincts and one in line with what we know to represent our long-term best interests). Thus, I think free will requires a measure of consciousness. While I think monkeys and dolphins have a measure of consciousness, I'm unsure whether the possess it to the degree that they can ever be said to choose act x vs act y.

Incidentally, on my account drunk people are less "free" than sober ones. So, find that part of the brain inhibited while drunk and you have to locus of free will (at least you're in the right "area.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

I guess I also question how much we act against our instincts. Are we really not acting in accord with our instincts when we choose not to smoke, even though we want to? I mean, the human brain is unlike that of any other animal, why is it that we cant have greater instincts?

Im not sure if the answer can simply be that "all humans wouldnt stop smoking there, but all humans would quickly remove their hand from a burner" (the latter of which is surely instinctive), because Pavlov got that dog to salivate when others wouldnt.


Also, on the idea of instict. Does an animal that has sex for pleasure and not pro-creation mean they are acting apart from their instincts?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's just humans. If you know you're about to make a bad choice and you can still choose to do it.. You have free will.

2. You either have it or you don't

[/ QUOTE ]

No one makes bad choices.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I'd say monkeys, dolphins and dogs surely have it. Snakes probably. The other three probably not.

2. Yes I agree.

3. The correlation is probably very high between having a brain and having free will. So just as some beings have brains and others don't, the question of whether something with a brain was born to something without a brain arises. Maybe the first being with a brain wasn't born with it but just grew it somehow like a rare good type of cancer. Maybe this is also how free will first came about. Who knows?

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite part of this post bolded for emphasis.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
For me the "essence" of free will is making "decisions," which assumes the ability to "consciously" represent alternative courses of action. (Say, one in line with our instincts and one in line with what we know to represent our long-term best interests). Thus, I think free will requires a measure of consciousness. While I think monkeys and dolphins have a measure of consciousness, I'm unsure whether the possess it to the degree that they can ever be said to choose act x vs act y.

[/ QUOTE ] Since I like to guess. Let's talk the conciousness of bacteria. I believe that the consiouness of bacteria would be very limited. But it might include a representaion of self, and a number of selfs, corresponding to the number of bacteria present. And the state of self. Infecting or laying low. As you move up the ladder of evolution you would move from basic mathmatical representations to geographical representaion and finally thoughts.

An interesting lecture on bacteria is available here (http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/) . The name is How bacteria "Talk" to each other.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
So just as some beings have brains and others don't, the question of whether something with a brain was born to something without a brain arises.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is a difference.


A brain has incremental steps. I mean, it can start as just a few neurons, then a neural network, etc.

Free will doesnt have these incremantal steps.



Now, Im not using this as an argument against free will, I just think that IF I did believe in it, I would find that really interesting.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]


Interesting.

I guess I also question how much we act against our instincts. Are we really not acting in accord with our instincts when we choose not to smoke, even though we want to?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are acting against our instincts (read "urges") when we chosse not to smoke even when we really, really want to because not smoking is part of our broader plan for well-being. You could redefine instinct to include this, but then the term would cease to be much use for any purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, the human brain is unlike that of any other animal, why is it that we cant have greater instincts?

[/ QUOTE ]

The human brain isn't that different from other animals, pretty much a continuum in the animal kingdom.

[ QUOTE ]
Im not sure if the answer can simply be that "all humans wouldnt stop smoking there, but all humans would quickly remove their hand from a burner" (the latter of which is surely instinctive), because Pavlov got that dog to salivate when others wouldnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I got all that, but in my view keeping the hand on the burner is acting freely. Removing it is just biology/chemistry doing its work, from the activation of sensory receptors on the hand to the triggering of the motor cortex leading to the jerking away of the hand. It is only when another factor is added, or ability to "block" this reflex through the intercession of the frontal cortex, that we observe "free will."


[ QUOTE ]
Also, on the idea of instict. Does an animal that has sex for pleasure and not pro-creation mean they are acting apart from their instincts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, the instinct is to have sex, doesn't matter what the purpose is.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
1. What does and doesnt have free will? Is it just humans, or do other animals have it too?

Like, which of these have it:

- Monkey
- Dolphin
- Dog
- Snake
- Amoeba
- Cucumber (before being picked)
- Bacteria

[/ QUOTE ]
Monkey, Dolphin, Dog and Snake.


[ QUOTE ]
2. Do we agree that you either have it, or you dont? For example, things like sight exist on a continuum. Plants grow towards light, this is very basic sight, all the way up to our sight. But, I dont think you can sort of have free will. An organism either has it, or it doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is gradual. I claim to have free will but sometimes in my life I act on auto-pilot or by instinct, I dont think I am acting freely here (ie keeping my heart beating right through to driving home without thinking about it).

An example I find useful is breathing - usually it is automatic and I dont think I do it "freely" in the sense that I am making no choices. However, I can choose to vary this and take control and to choose when to breathe by acting freely.

I think there is a continuum of things which act purely instinctively (amoeba) up to things which act purely freely (I think this is only conceptually real - I doubt anything actually exists which acts in this way.) I think it is tied pretty closely to sentience - an amoeba has no control over anything it does and cant even think of varying it. Once sentience emerges to the point of being able to think about doings action A or action B free will has emerged to the same degree (even if the vast majority of the time the snake just acts, I expect it makes decisions at some level - perhaps whether to rouse itself and go eating or whether to sleep a bit more)


[ QUOTE ]
If we assume that abiogenesis is the correct explanation for life, and that some living things have free will and some dont, this means free will evolved at some point in natural history.

Does this seem to imply that something with free will was born to something without free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if you believe (as I do) that it is a gradual thing like any other trait.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For me the "essence" of free will is making "decisions," which assumes the ability to "consciously" represent alternative courses of action. (Say, one in line with our instincts and one in line with what we know to represent our long-term best interests). Thus, I think free will requires a measure of consciousness. While I think monkeys and dolphins have a measure of consciousness, I'm unsure whether the possess it to the degree that they can ever be said to choose act x vs act y.

[/ QUOTE ] Since I like to guess. Let's talk the conciousness of bacteria. I believe that the consiouness of bacteria would be very limited. But it might include a representaion of self, and a number of selfs, corresponding to the number of bacteria present. And the state of self. Infecting or laying low. As you move up the ladder of evolution you would move from basic mathmatical representations to geographical representaion and finally thoughts.

An interesting lecture on bacteria is available here (http://www.princeton.edu/WebMedia/lectures/) . The name is How bacteria "Talk" to each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're giving bacterial way, way too much credit here. Bacteria are bags of chemicals doing what chemicals do. You need neurons to get representations of the environment, and bateria (being single celled) don't have them.

[aeest400]

Completely agree with bunny, but may be more stingy about what I include in the "free" category.

[CallMeIshmael]

I need to get some sleep,

but 2 quick posts

aee..."The human brain isn't that different from other animals, pretty much a continuum in the animal kingdom."


This seems to fly contrary to some of your thoughts imo. You have said you believe free will is the product of consciously weighing options, which Im certain you will agree only humans (presumably) do. That makes the human brain not only different on continuum than other brains, but there is also this very important conceptual difference.

[CallMeIshmael]

I think we need to come up with a good idea of what we're talking about when we say "free will," because I dont really disagree with any of bunny's points, but I disagree with the conclusions.


I dont disagree with the statement that humans (and other animals) have control over their actions. When I lift my foot, I used my brain to tell my foot to lift.

My claim that there is no free will comes from the statement that when I 'choose' to lift my foot, I am not able to have affected the choice. The reason my brain decided to tell my foot to lift was that my genetic makeup and my environment/environmenal history were such that I was 'forced' into making that choice.

Do the free will people disagree with the second?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to come up with a good idea of what we're talking about when we say "free will," because I dont really disagree with any of bunny's points, but I disagree with the conclusions.


I dont disagree with the statement that humans (and other animals) have control over their actions. When I lift my foot, I used my brain to tell my foot to lift.

My claim that there is no free will comes from the statement that when I 'choose' to lift my foot, I am not able to have affected the choice. The reason my brain decided to tell my foot to lift was that my genetic makeup and my environment/environmenal history were such that I was 'forced' into making that choice.

Do the free will people disagree with the second?

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree - but we rapidly run into an impasse in my opinion. I believe in free will because it feels like I am making a choice and that I could have chosen otherwise - ie I wasnt forced. I think the burden of proof rests with the anti-free willers that every decision we make is determined from our current physical state (after all I think the jury is still out on whether physics is ultimately deterministic or not, so to say "we are physical beings, therefore we are deterministic" is a hard claim to demonstrate currently).

At this stage, it seems to me that the anti-free willers do not have enough evidence to back up their claim, so I see no reason to drop my belief in free will. Obviously this may change in coming years - I dont think it will though, I think the world has physical and non-physical (ie mental) components. How the two interrelate is a mystery to me and definitely one worth studying - there would be a certain "neatness" if the determinists turned out to be right and the non-physical is just a manifestation of the physical...they seem quite different to me at the moment though.

PS - Just to be clear, this was my position pre-theism and remains so now - all my comments here are made under the assumption that there is no God and life arose through purely physical processes.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
I need to get some sleep,

but 2 quick posts

aee..."The human brain isn't that different from other animals, pretty much a continuum in the animal kingdom."


This seems to fly contrary to some of your thoughts imo. You have said you believe free will is the product of consciously weighing options, which Im certain you will agree only humans (presumably) do. That makes the human brain not only different on continuum than other brains, but there is also this very important conceptual difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, I think i can (mostly) reconcile the tension, but am playing poker/drinking, so no time for elevated discussion.

[madnak]

You don't think the identification of causal mechanics in every component of the human brain is strong evidence against free will? Do you consider the idea of "free will" interactions at the quantum level to be more resonant and reasonable than the idea of quantum randomness?

You claim not to know where free will manifests. But that seems like a cop-out to me. The fact is, if it doesn't happen at the quantum level then it must violate the laws of physics in some way. That strikes me as an extreme claim, so it seems the burden of proof would definitely be on the . No matter where free will exists, if you propose it does exist then it stands to reason it should be measurable at some level. After all, if quantum randomness is really free will, then it's not "really" random. And in terms of atoms and molecules and everything at a higher level of abstraction than quanta, the effects of "free will" on the objects or particles would be directly observable.

So why haven't we observed this? Has quantum science just not gone far enough yet? I don't understand how the determinists haven't risen to the challenge powerfully, or how it's our job in the first place. To me the idea that an action has a cause seems like the reasonable basic assumption, and the burden of proof rests on those who believe in phenomena (of any kind) that are neither random nor have causes.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think the identification of causal mechanics in every component of the human brain is strong evidence against free will?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it provides evidence that the determinists may be onto something - but it doesnt override the experience I have of deciding what to do this afternoon. The experience of making that choice is very good evidence for free will imo and needs better evidence than - if this part of the brain is damaged, there is often corresponding visual impairment (I presume this sort of evidence is what you are referring to?) - I think evidence of this sort points to a connection between our brains and minds but doesnt establish that they are identical.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider the idea of "free will" interactions at the quantum level to be more resonant and reasonable than the idea of quantum randomness?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont really know what this means - can you elaborate? I dont think I am making a claim regarding quantum randomness, nor free will interactions at the quantum level

[ QUOTE ]
You claim not to know where free will manifests. But that seems like a cop-out to me. The fact is, if it doesn't happen at the quantum level then it must violate the laws of physics in some way. That strikes me as an extreme claim, so it seems the burden of proof would definitely be on the . No matter where free will exists, if you propose it does exist then it stands to reason it should be measurable at some level. After all, if quantum randomness is really free will, then it's not "really" random. And in terms of atoms and molecules and everything at a higher level of abstraction than quanta, the effects of "free will" on the objects or particles would be directly observable.

So why haven't we observed this? Has quantum science just not gone far enough yet? I don't understand how the determinists haven't risen to the challenge powerfully, or how it's our job in the first place. To me the idea that an action has a cause seems like the reasonable basic assumption, and the burden of proof rests on those who believe in phenomena (of any kind) that are neither random nor have causes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point I was making was that, at a fundamental level, every action doesnt have a cause. There is nothing to "make" an atom decay at a particular point, it just does (perhaps that is random perhaps not - it's certainly unpredictable. I'm not sure that these mean the same). Nor will an identical system perform in an identical way every time (at least this is my understanding of fundamental physics). I stop short of Penrose (I think) who claims that quantum phenomena will explain consciousness (and free will). I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics. I dont think it is established that the laws of physics are deterministic.

With regard to burden of proof - that is of course a philosophical position I adopt which is hard to defend other than "just cos". I try and take the world as it is - if someone wants to persuade me of something contrary to my experience then I require evidence from them. So I think solipsists, theists, determinists, idealists, formalists, materialists... (hmm had lots but cant think of any more)...all bear the onus of proof. This is because all of these positions are contrary to how I find the world on first glance.

I would have argued that phenomena like gravity, heat, electricity, light, etc were non-physical too many years ago - once we understood matter better all of these were reduced to physical processes/facts and the same may be true of mental phenomena. Believing in determinism seems to me to be saying "well I cant understand why it feels like I have free will, but I bet one day they'll prove I dont really"

[aeest400]

I'm cheating, but this is the correct way to think about free will: http://www.aec.at/fleshfactor/subs/reasons.html

Any sentence containing the words "quantum" and "free will" is false, except "quantum mechanics has nothing to do with free will" and "other animals may have a quantum of free will." Don't even bring it up--it's a nonstarter. Roger Penrose should be burned at the stake.

[CallMeIshmael]

"I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics. I dont think it is established that the laws of physics are deterministic."


I gotta head out for a bit, but I think I should note that physics doesnt need to be determined for free will to not exist.

If a physical state A doesnt necessarily decay into B, but rather it can decay into B1, B2, B3 and B4, and its completely random, then physics isnt determined. But, this doesnt mean that free will exists.

If those 4 states represent 4 different choices, then, yes we can actually make a 'choice' from different options, but its a randomness that made that choice and not the human.


Also, "I dont think it will though, I think the world has physical and non-physical (ie mental) components."

I think this is very cleary where the heart of the disagreement lies. I believe all mental processes are actually just physical processes.

Out of curiosity, on whom do you think the burden of proof is for this disagreement? I think its you, since your claim seems to make unncessary assumptions, and mine is more parsimonious. But, I feel you will claim me, since mine (admittedly) flies in the face of what we feel.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
"I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics. I dont think it is established that the laws of physics are deterministic."


I gotta head out for a bit, but I think I should note that physics doesnt need to be determined for free will to not exist.

If a physical state A doesnt necessarily decay into B, but rather it can decay into B1, B2, B3 and B4, and its completely random, then physics isnt determined. But, this doesnt mean that free will exists.

If those 4 states represent 4 different choices, then, yes we can actually make a 'choice' from different options, but its a randomness that made that choice and not the human.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that non-deterministic physics doesnt imply free will - it allows for the possibility though. The apparent non-determinism of physics isnt what makes me think free will exists, my subjective experience does that. Nonetheless, if physics is deterministic then I think the anti-freewillers have a stronger argument.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, "I dont think it will though, I think the world has physical and non-physical (ie mental) components."

I think this is very cleary where the heart of the disagreement lies. I believe all mental processes are actually just physical processes.

Out of curiosity, on whom do you think the burden of proof is for this disagreement? I think its you, since your claim seems to make unncessary assumptions, and mine is more parsimonious. But, I feel you will claim me, since mine (admittedly) flies in the face of what we feel.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct in that I think it is you. I certainly think you are entitled to use occam's razor in your proof but I think who has to prove what is a separate issue from occam's razor. My underlying approach to philosophy, or default position if you like, is to accept the world as I find it (with free will in existence) - if someone claims the world is actually different from how it seems then I ask them for reasons to support their claim.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
(I presume this sort of evidence is what you are referring to?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about neurochemistry. By studying individual neurons and small groups of neurons it's possible to identify the chemical mechanics by which they function - if every neuron functions according to these (causal) mechanics, then brain function is caused. Also the nervous signals that are responsible for communicating our "choices" to our bodies are causal and physical. In order for a "mental" metaphysical effect to create a physical chemical effect, it would either have to determine nervous outputs at a lower (ie quantum) level, or it would have to determine nervous outputs at a higher (chemical) level. If the mind determines outputs at a higher level, then it must do so by over-riding the normal chemical mechanics, creating a "magical" or supernatural effect in the chemistry of the brain. This is because when all quantum factors have been accounted for, the chemical functions of the neurons that make up the human brain are causal.

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to "make" an atom decay at a particular point, it just does (perhaps that is random perhaps not - it's certainly unpredictable. I'm not sure that these mean the same). Nor will an identical system perform in an identical way every time (at least this is my understanding of fundamental physics).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in both cases this is the result of quantum factors. That's where all the "unpredictability" in physics seems to arise, unless I'm very deeply mistaken. And isn't quantum physics "fundamental physics" by definition?

[ QUOTE ]
I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. But you haven't explained why this represents an opposition to determinism.

[ QUOTE ]
This is because all of these positions are contrary to how I find the world on first glance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So at first glance it seems to you that some phenomena have no causes? If that's true I suppose there's not much I can say to refute it, though to me at first glance it seems that there must be a reason for everything. And if there's no reason for something, it seems to me at first glance that it's random.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have argued that phenomena like gravity, heat, electricity, light, etc were non-physical too many years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why wouldn't your first assumption have been that these are physical phenomena? They've been treated as such at least since Aristotle. Why the view that they're metaphysical? Or is there no "why?"

[ QUOTE ]
Believing in determinism seems to me to be saying "well I cant understand why it feels like I have free will, but I bet one day they'll prove I dont really"

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that way to you, but what's your justification for such an assumption? You continue to approach the problem with an incompatibilist premise. Is that just how you see it at first glance? What of those like myself who see things in a compatibilist light at first glance, or others who don't "feel like" they have free will in the first place? Finally, how do you refute arguments such as Hume's (referenced in aeest's link)? These arguments are very powerful and don't involve empiricism at all.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
"I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics. I dont think it is established that the laws of physics are deterministic."


I gotta head out for a bit, but I think I should note that physics doesnt need to be determined for free will to not exist.

If a physical state A doesnt necessarily decay into B, but rather it can decay into B1, B2, B3 and B4, and its completely random, then physics isnt determined. But, this doesnt mean that free will exists.

If those 4 states represent 4 different choices, then, yes we can actually make a 'choice' from different options, but its a randomness that made that choice and not the human.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly right


[ QUOTE ]
Also, "I dont think it will though, I think the world has physical and non-physical (ie mental) components."

I think this is very cleary where the heart of the disagreement lies. I believe all mental processes are actually just physical processes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most philosophers believe all mental processes are physical processes. What this implies re psychology, will, etc has been the main issue in philosophy of mind for the last 40 years. I would guess that over a million pages have been published on the subject.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(I presume this sort of evidence is what you are referring to?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about neurochemistry. By studying individual neurons and small groups of neurons it's possible to identify the chemical mechanics by which they function - if every neuron functions according to these (causal) mechanics, then brain function is caused. Also the nervous signals that are responsible for communicating our "choices" to our bodies are causal and physical. In order for a "mental" metaphysical effect to create a physical chemical effect, it would either have to determine nervous outputs at a lower (ie quantum) level, or it would have to determine nervous outputs at a higher (chemical) level. If the mind determines outputs at a higher level, then it must do so by over-riding the normal chemical mechanics, creating a "magical" or supernatural effect in the chemistry of the brain. This is because when all quantum factors have been accounted for, the chemical functions of the neurons that make up the human brain are causal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think it is a puzzle how our mind interacts with our brain - although I dont think they are identical, the two are clearly connected. Perhaps it is something "quantum" or perhaps it is something mystical, I dont know but I dont see this as a cop out. My argument for believing in free will is purely one of subjective experience. Decide whether to play no limit or limit tonight - that experience is my evidence that free will exists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to "make" an atom decay at a particular point, it just does (perhaps that is random perhaps not - it's certainly unpredictable. I'm not sure that these mean the same). Nor will an identical system perform in an identical way every time (at least this is my understanding of fundamental physics).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in both cases this is the result of quantum factors. That's where all the "unpredictability" in physics seems to arise, unless I'm very deeply mistaken. And isn't quantum physics "fundamental physics" by definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was that there are observed physical effects with no causes so if non-physical mind can influence physical events this is not qualitatively a new thing for us.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just dont buy the argument alluded to earlier in this thread that humans cant have free will because they obey the laws of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. But you haven't explained why this represents an opposition to determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the argument was presented as a reason for being a determinist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is because all of these positions are contrary to how I find the world on first glance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So at first glance it seems to you that some phenomena have no causes? If that's true I suppose there's not much I can say to refute it, though to me at first glance it seems that there must be a reason for everything. And if there's no reason for something, it seems to me at first glance that it's random.

[/ QUOTE ]
No I think there is a cause for my choice - I think it is a non-physical one though. Perhaps I am using incorrect terminology or not explaining myself well....

I think that when it comes time for a decision to be made, the mental part of me makes a choice and this choice is reflected in my brain and on to other physical components of me. As to why option A is chosen over option B - I think my past history has had an impact on me, my environment has had an impact on me and perhaps there is a core personality, over which I had no control, which has had an impact on me. It still seems to me that the decision has not actually been made until I make my choice and nor does it seem inevitable - I think conditioning, past events, etc etc will increase my propensity for choosing A over B but nonetheless - I make a choice.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would have argued that phenomena like gravity, heat, electricity, light, etc were non-physical too many years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Why wouldn't your first assumption have been that these are physical phenomena? They've been treated as such at least since Aristotle. Why the view that they're metaphysical? Or is there no "why?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant pre-aristotle. On the face of them they are fundamentally different to a brick, say. It is only once our understanding of physics improved that we began to tie all of these things together.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Believing in determinism seems to me to be saying "well I cant understand why it feels like I have free will, but I bet one day they'll prove I dont really"

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that way to you, but what's your justification for such an assumption? You continue to approach the problem with an incompatibilist premise. Is that just how you see it at first glance? What of those like myself who see things in a compatibilist light at first glance, or others who don't "feel like" they have free will in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not an area of philosophy that I am at all well-read in. I'm just making stuff up. Consequently I dont know this distinction (compatibilist vs non-combatibilist) I'd appreciate a "Compatibilist for idiots" post if you have the time. With regard to people who dont feel they have free will then, of course I think they shouldnt believe in it - were I in that position I would require proof of its existence.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, how do you refute arguments such as Hume's (referenced in aeest's link)? These arguments are very powerful and don't involve empiricism at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I havent looked at the post yet (though will). In general though, my experience is where I start so what I will be looking for in an anti-free will position is some account of why it feels like I could have done something different.

[bunny]

I've only skim-read the article but it seems to me that what distinguishes my position from the one refuted there is that I dont think a free choice has to be uncaused. I think the current state of the agent making the choice places severe restrictions on the choices that can be made - nonetheless I continually make choices between those few that my upbringing, environment, mood and recent history allow me to pick from.

If you ask me to pick a color I can only choose one that I've heard of. Probably my psychology, early childhood, culture, etc etc will also restrict the options available to me. When I say blue though and reflect on my choice there is nothing compelling it - I could just as easily have said red, in an identical state.

It seems to me that the "me" inside is the cause of my choices. All kinds of things affect that "me" - sometimes the options open to me are severely restricted, nonetheless there is something doing the picking. Of course, this is no argument but hopefully a description of what I mean by free will as I dont have the grounding in terminology to say it quicker.

[madnak]

Compatibilism is the belief that free will (the subjective experience of making choices and the meaning associated with that experience) is compatible with determinism (the belief that everything has a cause or is, in the case of probabilistic determinism, random). Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism) provides a good summary.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument for believing in free will is purely one of subjective experience. Decide whether to play no limit or limit tonight - that experience is my evidence that free will exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

But perhaps the railway tracks don't join up a mile away, which is how I experience it. "how I experience it" can only be evidence for how I experience it or every whacko view of reality is equal. There are 17 virgins waiting and there aren't.
We need to find some method of bringing as much objectivity into our conclusions as possible or they remain at the level of illusion and hallucination.

I'm not convinced that "I experienced it" is an argument for a general external claim. Or else we have to start dealing with the alien abduction problem.

[godBoy]

It took me a little while to see where you were coming from with this this..

Bad decisions /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It took me a little while to see where you were coming from with this this..

Bad decisions /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to argue semantics, I just meant that I don't think anyone makes a choice that they think is bad. It might be judged subjectively as bad, but to them it seemed like the superior choice, for whatever reason.

[godBoy]

An addict hates his addiction, he knows that sticking this needle in his arm cannot possibly produce any good thing in his life.. He does so out of habit.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
An addict hates his addiction, he knows that sticking this needle in his arm cannot possibly produce any good thing in his life.. He does so out of habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand that sometimes people use the word "habit" to mean "addiction" but i think you're wrong. he knows that sticking the needle in his arm will make him feel a lot better.

[godBoy]

You obviously haven't seen addicts trying to break free of the stuff.. Before they shoot up they don't carefully weigh up their options and decide that using the drug will produce a desired outcome.

People make bad descisions all day long for varied reasons.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An addict hates his addiction, he knows that sticking this needle in his arm cannot possibly produce any good thing in his life.. He does so out of habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand that sometimes people use the word "habit" to mean "addiction" but i think you're wrong. he knows that sticking the needle in his arm will make him feel a lot better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He may be aware that, intellectually, it is better for him in the long run to kick it. People are very bad creatures when it comes to scope and delayed gratification. When he's fixing, its because he REALLY wants to. He's choosing what he thinks is best at the moment. Thats why junkies are so good at rationalization. "I can always quit later," "Its not going to happen to me," etc. are things that allow them to continue to believe their choices are right.

Really, cognitive dissonance prevents people from actively making 'bad' choices.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously haven't seen addicts trying to break free of the stuff.. Before they shoot up they don't carefully weigh up their options and decide that using the drug will produce a desired outcome.

People make bad descisions all day long for varied reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name one. The decision making process is rational. I don't see how a person could come to any sort of decision that they didn't at least believe was best for them at the time.

[godBoy]

The one I already named is still valid in my opinion.

Not all junkies use because they want to. Their will has been hijacked by chemicals and pathways written in the brain.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The one I already named is still valid in my opinion.

Not all junkies use because they want to. Their will has been hijacked by chemicals and pathways written in the brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now THAT is an interesting concession. What is it about those chemicals that are different from the chemicals that are normally making the decisions?

Edit: Let me clarify. Heroin doesn't make any decisions for you. It simply puts more pressure on the neurochemical pathways that DO make the decisions. But it puts the same pressure on them that the desire for food, sex and safety do.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My argument for believing in free will is purely one of subjective experience. Decide whether to play no limit or limit tonight - that experience is my evidence that free will exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

But perhaps the railway tracks don't join up a mile away, which is how I experience it. "how I experience it" can only be evidence for how I experience it or every whacko view of reality is equal. There are 17 virgins waiting and there aren't.
We need to find some method of bringing as much objectivity into our conclusions as possible or they remain at the level of illusion and hallucination.

I'm not convinced that "I experienced it" is an argument for a general external claim. Or else we have to start dealing with the alien abduction problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Argument was a poor choice of words - I use subjective experience to find a "starting point". In other words my reason for believing in free will is because I accept the world as I find it unless I see a good reason not to. It's certainly not going to persuade an incombatibilist determinist (?) if I just say "It seems like free will exists to me".

I think personal experiences have value if they are universal or nearly so. It was only recently that I read an article from someone who claims to not experience free will. She says that when a decision is made, there is no subjective experience for her that anything is making that choice - it just happens. Clearly, if the subjective feeling of decision making is not as universal as I had thought then it undermines my reason for believing in free will.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My argument for believing in free will is purely one of subjective experience. Decide whether to play no limit or limit tonight - that experience is my evidence that free will exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

But perhaps the railway tracks don't join up a mile away, which is how I experience it. "how I experience it" can only be evidence for how I experience it or every whacko view of reality is equal. There are 17 virgins waiting and there aren't.
We need to find some method of bringing as much objectivity into our conclusions as possible or they remain at the level of illusion and hallucination.

I'm not convinced that "I experienced it" is an argument for a general external claim. Or else we have to start dealing with the alien abduction problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Argument was a poor choice of words - I use subjective experience to find a "starting point". In other words my reason for believing in free will is because I accept the world as I find it unless I see a good reason not to. It's certainly not going to persuade an incombatibilist determinist (?) if I just say "It seems like free will exists to me".

I think personal experiences have value if they are universal or nearly so. It was only recently that I read an article from someone who claims to not experience free will. She says that when a decision is made, there is no subjective experience for her that anything is making that choice - it just happens. Clearly, if the subjective feeling of decision making is not as universal as I had thought then it undermines my reason for believing in free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which just gets us back to the fundamental disjoint, which is that all experience is fundamentally subjective, whereas reason is fundamentally objective, and you cannot use an objective process to fundamentally describe or understand a subjective one, and vice versa.

[bunny]

Well I cant yet wrap my head around combatibilism so I cant really argue against it.

My first take on the issue was that if the world is deterministic then free will doesnt exist since every decision is completely determined by current conditions and there are no options and no chance something else will be "chosen". Run the same event again and you will always get the same answer. I cant see how, if that is the case, you had any free will in making the choice.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, now THAT is an interesting concession. What is it about those chemicals that are different from the chemicals that are normally making the decisions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am answering assuming this is true - Not all junkies use because they want to.

If the chemicals are at normal levels - You can make the decisions that you choose. If they aren't you may be forced to act against your will.

When the chemicals are in balance they simply make it possible for you to do what it is you would like to, they don't make the choices they just obey.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
You obviously haven't seen addicts trying to break free of the stuff.. Before they shoot up they don't carefully weigh up their options and decide that using the drug will produce a desired outcome.

People make bad descisions all day long for varied reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for making such a stupid response so early on in our discussion so i could immediately see that arguing with you about this would be pointless.

[godBoy]

No problem Sephus.

[bbjurstrom]

If it is true that god "has a plan for our lives," then it seems clear that there cannot be free will. Or at least I can't think of how the two are compatible. But I would welcome any ideas for how they can coexist.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with you that we have no free will, but I'm curious to hear your argument against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm thinking it goes something like "people obey the laws of physics like everything else."

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very nice post sir.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that god "has a plan for our lives," then it seems clear that there cannot be free will. Or at least I can't think of how the two are compatible. But I would welcome any ideas for how they can coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a further note this is a great example of the paradox between an omnsicent being, and free will in humans. If there is something, someone, who is omniscient and knows our future, then our future choices are determined. Since the essence of free will is choosing between options, and with our future fore-known we can never choose between options, it is clear that omniscience and freewill are incompatible.

But that being said, I can't really foresee any way that free will could exist (as I've said a number of times on this forum). I mean, free will is like an uncaused effect.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]

But that being said, I can't really foresee any way that free will could exist (as I've said a number of times on this forum). I mean, free will is like an uncaused effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this quote from the article I cited http://www.aec.at/fleshfactor/subs/reasons.html (by McArthur Award winning philosopher/neuroscienct Patricia Churchland) will help clear up some of the confusions re the notion that a free will should be "uncaused" (a prima facie reasonable belief) as well as some of the hooey re quantum physics:

A venerable tradition bases the conditions for free will and control on a contrast between being caused to do something and not being so caused. For example, if someone pushes me from behind and I bump into you, then my bumping you was caused by the push; I did not choose to bump you. Examples conforming to this prototype have given credence to the idea that in order for a choice to be free, it must be uncaused. That is, it is supposed that a free choice is made when, without prior cause and without prior constraints, a decision comes into being and an action results. This contracausal construal free choice is known as libertarianism. (See C. A. Campbell 1957) Is it plausible?

As Hume pointed out in 1739 , the answer is surely no. Hume argued that our choices and decisions are in fact caused by other events in the mind -- desires, beliefs, preferences, feelings, and so forth. Nor need the precipitating events, whether described as mental or as neuronal, be conscious. He also made the much deeper and more penetrating observation that agents are not considered responsible for their choices made unless they are caused by our desires, intentions, and so forth. Randomness, pure chance, utter unpredictability, are not preconditions for control. Hume puts the issue with memorable compactness:

where [actions] proceed not from some cause in the characters and disposition of the person, who perform'd them, they infix not themselves upon him, and can neither redound to his honor if good, nor infamy, if evil. (p. 411)

Logic reveals, Hume argued, that responsibility is actually inconsistent with libertarianism (uncaused choice). Someone may choose to climb onto his roof because he does not want the rain to come in his house, he wants to fix the loose shingles, and he believes that he needs to get up on the roof to do that. His desires, intentions and beliefs are part of the causal antecedents resulting in his choice. If, without determining desire and belief, he simply went up onto the roof -- as it were, for no reason -- his sanity and hence his control is seriously in doubt. More generally, a choice undetermined by anything the agent believes, intends or desires is actually the kind of thing we consider out of the agent's control and not the sort of thing for which we hold someone responsible. Furthermore, desires or beliefs, were they uncaused rather than caused by other stable features of the person's character and temperament, are likewise inappropriate preconditions for responsible choice. (See also Hobart 1934.)

Neither Hume's argument that choices are internally caused nor his argument showing that libertarianism is absurd has ever been convincingly refuted. (For disagreements with Hume, see Kenny 1989) Notice, moreover, that his arguments hold whether or not one thinks of the mind as a separate Cartesian substance, or as pattern of activity of the physical brain; whether one thinks of the etiologically relevant states as conscious or unconscious. If anything in philosophy could count as a result, Hume's argument on free will does. Nonetheless, the idea that randomness in the physical world is somehow the key to what makes free choice free remains appealing to those inclined to believe that free choice must be uncaused choice. The appeal of quantum mechanics, chaos, and so forth, as a "solution" to the problem of free will and responsibility generally derives from an intuition innocent of exposure to Hume's result.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that god "has a plan for our lives," then it seems clear that there cannot be free will. Or at least I can't think of how the two are compatible. But I would welcome any ideas for how they can coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is any paradox - God's plan could just be to put us in situations where we have to make choices and see what we choose.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that god "has a plan for our lives," then it seems clear that there cannot be free will. Or at least I can't think of how the two are compatible. But I would welcome any ideas for how they can coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont think this is any paradox - God's plan could just be to put us in situations where we have to make choices and see what we choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, being omniscient, he would know ahead of time what we "chose," and if God knows what we choose before we choose it, then how is our choice free? St. Augustine was the first to really worry about this Christian problem of free will. Not being a Christian, I really don't care.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that god "has a plan for our lives," then it seems clear that there cannot be free will. Or at least I can't think of how the two are compatible. But I would welcome any ideas for how they can coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]


I dont think this is any paradox - God's plan could just be to put us in situations where we have to make choices and see what we choose.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, being omniscient, he would know ahead of time what we "chose," and if God knows what we choose before we choose it, then how is our choice free? St. Augustine was the first to really worry about this Christian problem of free will. Not being a Christian, I really don't care.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the "God has a plan" objection and "God already knows what we will choose" objection are two different arguments. Although I dont accept either of them as valid, I was merely pointing out that the first is not really paradoxical.

[Andrew Karpinski]

bunny :

If I know, for 100% fact, that you are going to eat some potato salad for dinner and nothing else, can you choose to eat chicken wings instead? (The answer is pretty obviously no, since I know for 100% fact that you are going to eat potato salad).

Since I KNOW you are going to eat potato salad and not chicken wings, do you have a choice in the matter? Are you 'choosing' when you eat potato salad, despite the fact that you could not possibly have chicken wings?

[bunny]

This feels like a hijack since the OP asked us to assume there was no God. But to briefly give my answer:

I conceive of God as existing outside of space and time. In other words, he isnt here now knowing what will happen in the future, all times are equally accessible to him. In my view, it is incorrect to refer to God as existing "now" or in the past or future - it is unavoidable, given out language, but incorrect.

I know with 100% certainty what you typed in your last post. The fact that I know that makes no difference to whether you were free to type it or not. In God's case - past, present and future are equally accessible. He knows what I ate for breakfast - yet I was free to choose it. He knows what I am eating for lunch - I am choosing that now. He knows what I will choose for dinner - I will freely choose it then (I had many options at each of these meals and he knew which one I chose).

The difference with your situation is that you have to predict what I will eat - if you can do so with 100% certainty then I would have no choice, yes. That is because, in order for you to be able to predict my choice, the world would be deterministic and I dont believe determinism and free will are compatible. God doesnt predict - he knows. The error is in the way we describe God (as existing in time - I cannot make statements about him without ascribing a temporal existence, even though I dont believe he exists within space or time. If it makes it clearer, imagine all of the events in space and time occurring in God's past - now there is no paradox. God knew what I would choose for breakfast, he knew what I would choose for dinner tomorrow and he knew how the universe would end.

In my view, any paradox comes from believing God exists at this point in time, knowing what will happen - I think this is a misconception of his nature.

[Matt R.]

Oh no. Not this again.

[Andrew Karpinski]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh no. Not this again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Bunny, it's my fault, but let's leave this one alone for this thread.

[bunny]

Sorry - cant help myself. /images/graemlins/frown.gif