Mind

Jerry Coyne: “we have no choice but to pretend”

Spread the love

Some recent posts by Jerry Coyne brought back memories of this article:

So if we don’t have free will, what can we do? One possibility is to give in to a despairing nihilism and just stop doing anything. But that’s impossible, for our feeling of personal agency is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to pretend that we do choose,

Why you don’t have free will

Pretend? As in “make believe”? As in live one’s life according to a presumed falsehood? A religious person at least has some conviction (even a mistaken conviction) he is following the truth, but Coyne “knows” what he is following is false, but still does it.

Nuclear physicist Dave Heddle offers another criticism:

Jerry, if all actions are predetermined then you cannot act as if you have choices. Acting is a volitional process of the very type you are denying. In your model there is no acting, there is only a differential equation of the universe cranking out its next time step.

He is so close! He admits that in his world-view everything is predetermined, but in the next breath he obfuscates that unsavory factoid by claiming that he can “act” as though he has free choices. He can freely chose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose.

It Burns

But these facts don’t stop Jerry Coyne for arguing for what is just and unjust:

Even without free will then, we can still use punishment to deter bad behavior, protect society from criminals, and figure out better ways to rehabilitate them. What is not justified is revenge or retribution — the idea of punishing criminals for making the “wrong choice.”

The desire to seek justice or retribution is itself unjustified? But that makes little sense. If the desire to serve justice to people like Jodi Arias is predetermined, then Coyne has no logical reason to say the desire for justice is unjustified. It would be like saying Newton’s law:

F = ma

is unjust.

According to Coyne criminals can’t be viewed ultimately as doing wrong since they have no free will. But with respect to society, he suspends his own assumptions by arguing people who seek justice are unjustified. But the only way to say a seeker of justice is unjustified is to assume that the seeker of justice has free will. So when it comes to society, Coyne will treat those seeking justice as having free will, but then treat criminals as if they have no free will. Where is the logic there, Jerry?

Coyne echoes the same illogic of Clarence Darrow (of Scope Monkey fame). John West observes:

Darrow once told prisoners in a county jail that there was no difference whatever in the moral condition between themselves and those still in society. “I do not believe people are in jail because they deserve to be,” he declared. “They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it, on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control, and for which they are in no way responsible.” According to Darrow, “there ought to be no jails, and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealing with the people on the inside, there would be no such institutions as jails.” He added that he knew why “every one” of the prisoners committed their crimes, even if they did not know the reason themselves: “You did these things because you were bound to do them.” Those prisoners who thought they made a choice to commit a crime were simply deluded. “It looked to you at the time as if you had a chance to do them or not, as you saw fit; but still, after all, you had no choice.”

Darrow even suggested that police were the real criminals,

Meet the Materialists pt 5

Jerry Coyne, Clarence Darrow, Will Provine, etc. say the justice system is unjust because criminals have no free will. By that same standard however, they can’t logically argue the justice system is unjust since the justice system does not have the free will to be just or unjust. Nevertheless, the illogic of their views doesn’t stop them from promoting their views!

NOTES:

Not only is Coyne logically challenged, in the end he could be wrong about his physics. There is one evolutionary biologist by the name of Ken Miller who disagrees with Coyne about determinism:

This [quantum uncertainty] is something biologists, almost universally, have not yet come to grips with. And its consequences are enormous. It certainly means that we should wonder more than we currently do about the saying that life is made of “mere” matter….

This means that absolute materialism, a view that control and predictability and ultimate explanation are possible, breaks down in a way that is biologically significant. It means that after we have obtained understanding of so much of the world around us, the ultimate mastery of even the tiniest bit of matter in the universe will always elude us….

[Thus] The core assumptions supporting the “scientific” disbelief [atheism] of the absolute materialist are wrong, even by the terms of science itself…

What matters is the straightforward, factual, strictly scientific recognition that matter in the universe behaves in such a way that we can never achieve complete knowledge of any fragment of it, and that life itself is structured in a way that allows biological history to pivot directly on these tiny uncertainties. That ought to allow even the most critical scientist to admit that the breaks in causality at the atomic level make it fundamentally impossible to exclude the idea that what we have really caught a glimpse of might indeed reflect the mind of God.
….

In the final analysis, absolute materialism does not triumph because it cannot fully explain the nature of reality.


Quantum reality is strange, troublesome, and downright illogical, but its unexpected discovery solves one of the key philosophical problems faced by any religious person: How can a world governed by precise physical law escape a strictly deterministic future?…

The indeterminate nature of quantum behavior means that the details of the future are not strictly determined by present reality….few theologians appreciate the degree to which physics has rescued religion from the dangers of Newtonian predictability. I suspect that they do not know (at least not yet) who their true friends are!

Ken Miller, “Physics has Rescued Religion”

PS
Coyne advocates we “make believe” . For the reader’s entertainment, there is a song by the title: “Make Believe” which speaks of the “peace of mind in pretending”:

HT: Mike Gene, Dave Heddle, Evolution News Blog

36 Replies to “Jerry Coyne: “we have no choice but to pretend”

  1. 1
    johnnyb says:

    I think that very few people realize that this is *the* fundamental issue in ID. If there is any part of the universe – in our case within our own choices, where reality is more than the inexorable unfolding of physics, then Darwinism totally breaks down. It doesn’t hardly at all matter if common descent is true or false. If it is true, common descent still has to grapple with where choice came from to begin with! Choice can’t come from common descent, unless something gave the ability to choose to that original organism! The ability to make decisions, to act morally or immorally, means that our origins must have involved something, somewhere in time, something beyond mere physical happenstance.

    The theistic worldview allows for any amount of material causation. The materialistic worldview, however, completely breaks down if there is even one single thing that happens that is counter to it.

    And this is why it is insane. Our very consciousness and choices testify against materialism. It is hard to see how anyone could be both alive and a materialist, except that they choose not to see.

  2. 2
    EvilSnack says:

    Mr. Coyne, if we have no free will, then everything you say is the babbling of subatomic particles, and we should ignore it.

    But of course, you cannot help but to babble on, because you have no choice.

    And our belief in higher powers is not something we can choose to stop, either.

  3. 3
    goodusername says:

    He admits that in his world-view everything is predetermined, but in the next breath he obfuscates that unsavory factoid by claiming that he can “act” as though he has free choices. He can freely chose, he believes, to pretend that he can freely choose.

    But isn’t everything predetermined in the Christian world-view as well? (Or any world-view with an omniscient being)

  4. 4

    Actually, Coyne is perfect evidence of his belief; if all we are is biological programming, then there’s nothing that prevents us from being biologically programmed to spout nonsense while believing such nonsense to be wisdom.

    I’m more than happy to accept Coyne and his ilk at their word; they are biological automatons spouting whatever inane nonsense physics commands, and thinking of it whatever happenstance colliding molecules generate as thought.

    The whole debate makes so much more sense, and is far less frustrating, when you just accept them for what they claim to be.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    William J Murray, I was hoping you would come around. It seems someone has just taken issue with a quote of yours I cited:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-454394

    I know you will do far better in answering him than I could hope to.

  6. 6
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    If there were no free will, we wouldn’t even have such a concept. And yet…

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Live Stream video Biola:

    Join us as we celebrate 20 years of Stand to Reason and clear thinking Christianity. The event kicks off Friday night with stimulating apologetics lectures and a celebration! Join us for the full conference on Saturday featuring lectures from the Stand to Reason speakers and friends. Can’t make it to Biola? This event will be available via live stream online.
    https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/

    http://www.biola.edu/academics.....uffer61a10

  8. 8
    JDH says:

    Here is what I don’t understand. Materialism is so evidently false. Previously I thought that nothing could capture the quintessence of self-contradiction more than the inane words, “I choose to believe I don’t have a free will.” I was wrong. Jerry Coyne has taken inanity to a new level. “I know I can’t choose to have a free will so I will pretend I have one to answer a biological drive I have.” That just takes the cake.

    So why isn’t the rest of the world laughing. Why is it that people of Jerry’s ilk are lauded, thought wise, and paid money to spout nonsense? It just does not make sense.

    The older I get the more I see that just plain scientific observation and a little well formed logic can be used to at least prove beyond any remote possibility that there is a personal God. Its doesn’t take much more faith to believe that He can communicate clearly to us His great Love for His creation

    The heavens declare the glory of God. The cross demonstrates His Love. And for some reason, much of the world chooses to believe in what can’t possibly be true– that random chance could ever create the will they so obviously have. It’s really sad.

  9. 9
    JDH says:

    goodusername – God’s omniscience does not imply predetermination. Just because we don’t understand what it means to be outside of time ( like the creator must be ) does not mean that He can’t both grant freedom, and know the outcome. I know you can’t see it, but He can.

    I suggest for your reading a little book called “Flatland”. In it a sphere visits a circle who lives in a two dimensional world. At one point he brings the circle out of the plane to see Flatland from above. Existing in three dimensions for a little bit, the circle can see things that are impossible to see in Flatland. For instance, he can see on both sides of a solid two dimensional wall ( a line ) at the same time. He can see the insides of Flatlanders. But when he gets back to Flatland, it is impossible for him to describe to the Flatlanders what the third dimension is.

    In fact what is really amazing about God is that he gave us free will. I fancy myself to be a pretty good programmer. But one thing I could never do was make a program that would disobey. I am not talking about using a pseudo random number generator to simulate fuzzy logic, I am talking about me wanting the program to do one thing, and it choosing to do another. AI is not doable not because there aren’t enough clever programmers, but none of us is willing or able to create something that does not do what we say. God did.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Here is a cascade:

    ____________

    >> Without freedom of choice, however, our ability to think and decide reasonably and to the good collapses, crash.

    Duty, now overwhelmed by inability to think and the force of impulses driving our feelings follows, crash.

    Morality, having no supporting foundation, now becomes a matter of the push and counter-push of the factions in the community, leading to radical relativism and “might makes right” nihilism a la Nietzsche, crash.

    Civility and civil society follow in the collapse, crash.

    Anarchy and chaos follow, crash.

    And, then the magical political messiah appears to save us from our woes amidst a media halo, and we end up in veiled or open tyranny, crash.

    Those who retain principles or the memory and feelings of principles soon find themselves isolated and scapegoated then persecuted, crash.

    Freedom is now gone — and to recover such is always a long, arduous and costly, likely bloody, process — crash.

    Our civilisation has been lost to a new barbarianism, crash. >>

    ____________

    It seems to me that a lot is at stake.

    KF

  11. 11
    Eugen says:

    Jerry Coyne vs dozen pairs of cowboy boots

    Jerry wakes up on Monday morning and is getting ready for work. He looks with worry at his dozen pairs of cowboy boots and is trying to decide- make choice which pair to wear.

    He should not worry, the chemical process in his brain already made that choice for him. Chemicals decided this morning he will look good in alligator skin boots!
    🙂

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    @ your #8, JDH

    ‘So why isn’t the rest of the world laughing. Why is it that people of Jerry’s ilk are lauded, thought wise, and paid money to spout nonsense? It just does not make sense.’

    Money speaks its own language, JDH. The World with that capital ‘W’, of which Christ spoke so disparagingly, is in charge, has pots of money, owns the media and just about everything else. And the last thing it wants, is moral oversight of its business.

    If you haven’t seen it, watch the video clip on YouTube, called The American Dream, in which George Carlin, a blasphemous, foul-mouthed atheist, but with the most penetrating political insight, lays it out; in necessarily simple terms, because, bizarrely they really are that simple.

  13. 13
    Bruce David says:

    Here is a question for anyone who believes in free will: How do you fit certain forms of insanity into your world view? I’m speaking of the kind of insanity so brilliantly portrayed by Leo DiCaprio in The Aviator, the biopic of Howard Hughes that came out a few years ago. His insanity, when it took hold of him, apparently erased his free will. He was no longer able to make free choices. This was portrayed starkly in the final scene where his affliction, which had been temporarily at bay, reasserted itself, and he was unable to do anything other than wander around the bathroom he was in spouting the same phrase over and over. As he descended into this hell, his last shred of sanity was an agonized “Dammit!” as he realized what was happening to him.

    Now Hughes’ insanity was harmless to everyone but himself. But what of the sociopaths and psychopaths, the serial killers and rapists and child molesters? To what extent are they operating under their own free will, and to what extent are they, like Howard Hughes, victims of an insanity that has robbed them of free will altogether? How do we know? What do we do about it?

  14. 14
    bb says:

    JDH @ 9 – Thank you. That’s a keeper.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    Bruce David,

    Insanity, sociopaths and psychopaths, the serial killers and rapists and child molesters would be due to hardware malfunctions. And (perhaps) those hardware malfunctions prevent the immaterial free will from being properly expressed.

  16. 16

    Here is a question for anyone who believes in free will: How do you fit certain forms of insanity into your world view?

    IMO, not everyone has free will. Some people are just biological automatons that play a role here for the benefit of those that do have free will. NPCs, if you will. Non-Player Characters.

  17. 17
    Bruce David says:

    Joe, re. #15:

    Insanity, sociopaths and psychopaths, the serial killers and rapists and child molesters would be due to hardware malfunctions. And (perhaps) those hardware malfunctions prevent the immaterial free will from being properly expressed.

    Then what about the man with very conservative ideas who finds his daughter in bed with her boyfriend and, in the grip of overwhelming feelings of shame and rage, shoots them both? Was that also a “hardware malfunction”? We have all said and done things that we later regretted while in the grip of emotions that momentarily controlled us. Were these also “hardware malfunctions”? Where do you draw the line? At what point does “hardware malfunction” abrogate free will?

    A second question. If the serial killer is in the grip of a “hardware malfunction” that prevents the immaterial free will from being properly expressed, then what will be his or her fate after death? Will God hold him accountable for actions that he performed while essentially having no free will?

  18. 18
    JDH says:

    Bruce David,

    Your problem Bruce is that you think in extremes, free will or not free will. We are conscious beings that live inside a body. Hormones, genetic predispositions, physical ailments, they all affect the ability of people to make choices.

    As johnnyb pointed out @1 the problem is asymmetrical.

    Examples you show, where certain people have become enslaved to their bodily functions and are no longer able to control their impulses do not prove no free will, they only prove the weakness and frailty of human beings.

    Even one case where someone is able to make a choice proves free will.

    I wish you would stop being a fool and stop denying the obvious.

    As for your “hard” case about the “the serial killer is in the grip of a ‘hardware malfunction'” — God is well able to handle those cases because he sees what Bruce David is not able to. Believe or not Bruce, He sees you, and will judge you if you do not repent.

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    Bruce David:

    Then what about the man with very conservative ideas who finds his daughter in bed with her boyfriend and, in the grip of overwhelming feelings of shame and rage, shoots them both?

    Does he piss himself first?

    Was that also a “hardware malfunction”?

    Anyone who goes around with a gun looking for a chance to use it, has a malfunction.

    We have all said and done things that we later regretted while in the grip of emotions that momentarily controlled us.

    I have never killed anyone because of emotions.

    But I would say that we have the free will to become emotional- unlike Vulcans, especially half-human Vulcans.

    We then have the free will to channel that emotion, and some people’s channeling ability may be defective.

    Where do you draw the line?

    No harm, no foul. Primal emotion is good sometimes, albeit in moderation.

    If the serial killer is in the grip of a “hardware malfunction” that prevents the immaterial free will from being properly expressed, then what will be his or her fate after death?

    He/ she gets buried in Virginia.

  20. 20
    StephenB says:

    Bruce David

    If the serial killer is in the grip of a “hardware malfunction” that prevents the immaterial free will from being properly expressed, then what will be his or her fate after death? Will God hold him accountable for actions that he performed while essentially having no free will?

    Not everyone who is in the grip of a hardware malfunction is an innocent victim of fate. In many cases, the person begins with an immoral act, forms a bad habit, and develops a flawed character. An alcoholic often becomes an alcoholic by drinking in a progressively irresponsible way, eventually losing his freedom to drink responsibly. A serial killer may have learned to dehumanize in a progressive way through pornography addiction, which programs neuro-pathways in the brain to crave more and more.

    Ted Bundy made this confession just before he died:

    “It happened in stages, gradually,” he said. “My experience with … pornography that deals on a violent level with sexuality, is once you become addicted to it … I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Until you reach a point where the pornography only goes so far … where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give that which is beyond just reading it or looking at it.”

    Violence in the media, he said, “particularly sexualized violence,” sent boys “down the road to being Ted Bundys. The FBI, he suggested, should stake out adult movie houses and follow patrons as they leave. “You are going to kill me,” he said, “and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that.”

  21. 21
    Bruce David says:

    JDH, re. 18:

    I never said I don’t believe in free will. In fact the opposite is true. I merely posed a series of questions for those who believe in free will to grapple with.

    Believe or not Bruce, He sees you, and will judge you if you do not repent.

    No He won’t. He loves me unconditionally. Unconditional love neither judges nor condemns. Not to worry.

    Joe re. 19 and StephenB re. 20:
    You have both missed the point, which is that if one believes in free will, how do you work the cases in which free will is apparently absent into your philosophy? Stephen, you addressed a subset where one could claim that some people freely choose a path that eventually robs them of free will, but that clearly does not cover all the ground. It doesn’t address Howard Hughes’ situation, for example, nor that of the serial killer who didn’t get there by choosing to view pornography. Furthermore, neither of you grapples with the question of exactly at what point strong emotions overwhelm free will.

    These are important questions for a believer in free will. Without the ability to answer them in some way, one’s assertion that we all have free will is mostly just hand waving.

  22. 22
    groovamos says:

    Bruce David: and to what extent are they, like Howard Hughes, victims of an insanity that has robbed them of free will altogether? How do we know? What do we do about it?

    The ego is our own creation, and we use it to hide from our purpose and to hide from certain spontaneous processes/impulses in the psyche. Processes which exist to resolve dilemmas, traumas, failings, and crimes from the past (not to exclude such related to previous incarnations), this clash between ego and spirit can in most cases result in personal problems, neuroses, fears, perversions, insanity and all of the other human ills and wickedness. The most revolutionary book on psychospiritual crises unfoldment is Grof’s “Realms of the Human Unconscious” in which the history of the author’s 17 years application of psychedelics in psychiatry was first put into a theoretical framework. His research in this area began in 1955 in Prague, he immigrated here during the Prague spring of ’68. I urge everyone to read and study the findings and implications of the work of Stanislav Grof, especially materialists. The above was his first book and easily the best introduction. BTW our federal government has in the past 15 years or so resumed licensing research with psychedelics in psychotherapy, I think exclusively incorporating psilocybin.

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    ‘we have no choice but to pretend that we do choose,’

    Coyne is right, of course. 100%. He doesn’t have a choice. Nor do his fellow, atheist-zealots.

    So, why are fantasists allowed in the Academy? Even if the word, ‘pretend’ is intended in the sense of ‘claim’, it must be unheard of for a relatively eminent figure in any field of learning (maybe, with the exception of ‘science qua stamp-collecting’) to so comprehensively annihilate his own authority, and immediately proceed to say, ‘Well. We’re not going to capitulate, anyway, are we boys and girls.’

  24. 24

    One wonders, in the spirit of charity, how anyone can say the things that Coyne and his ilk say? How can they repeatedly, even when it is pointed out to them, miss the obvious begged questions, the blatant assumption of the consequent, the stunning convenient definitional fiats?

    When they redefine “choice” as the mere sensation produced in a system that coincides with a computed outcome, why can they not see what they have done? When they say they start with nothing, but have redefined “nothing” as “inherent qualities of an existent spacetime”, how can we reconcile such a blatant conceptual failure with someone who is intelligent and sincere?

    Do they know they are redefining terms, such as “self-evident” and “objective”, when they refer to them as nothing more than agreements of the consensus? When they are corrected about their misconceptions about relatively trivial matters in the ID debate, how is it that later they make the exact same statements – no matter how many times corrected?

    How can they say there is no evidence for design, when the prima facie evidence is overwhelming – admittedly so, even by the opposition? How can they dismiss the Law of Non-contradiction, when doing so would render their attempts at communication impossible? How can the claim that morality is relative and subjective, then turn around and tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, as if their view and the one they oppose are not both validated on the same grounds?

    If we assume they are not evil, and that they are sincerely doing the best they can to communicate, how is the above even possible? How are these people so immune to the obvious and the necessary?

    In any event, what good (for them) does it do to debate or present evidence to those that are already denying the obvious and the necessary? No further argument or evidence can rise to the level of that which they already dismiss, deny and ignore. If they are willing to claim the hypocritical, self-contradictory and the absurd in defense of what they believe, what can anyone offer to move them from that position?

    The only things that can change their position is their own free will – a choice to believe otherwise.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    With his failed medical background, and non-empirically-based conjectures, Darwin was surely a prime example of a real ‘stamp-collector’ – except that his preference was for pressed flowers and plants.

  26. 26
    Joe says:

    Bruse David:

    You have both missed the point, which is that if one believes in free will, how do you work the cases in which free will is apparently absent into your philosophy?

    Look for hardware malfunctions.

    Furthermore, neither of you grapples with the question of exactly at what point strong emotions overwhelm free will.

    Perhaps strong emotions that overwhelm free will are indications of a hardware malfunction.

  27. 27
    Axel says:

    Someone can forfeit their free will by allowing their soul to be deadened by habitual, serious sin – in which case, warnings ignored, it can be taken over by devils.

    It is likely that serial killers and people who kill a parent, for example, in what appears no more than a violent rage, could be examples; though one would imagine that most, if not all, serial killers would be psychopaths, to begin with, so cases where someone snaps and even sets themselves on a deliberate course of action to kill someone with whom they’d had a fierce row, would probably have been the more likely to have been taken over during their adult life.

  28. 28
    Barb says:

    Bruce David brings up an interesting situation. I believe that God gifted us with free will or freedom of choice. We are not slaves to our own biochemistry. Freedom of choice precludes predestination. This does not mean we have absolute freedom; we are, of course, bound to physical and moral laws that ensure the stability of the universe. The writer Corliss Lamont asks: “How can we attribute ethical responsibility to men, and punish them for wrongdoing, if we accept . . . that their choices and actions are predetermined?” Of course, we cannot, as Coyne points out.
    Without free will, we have no ethics or morals. We are little more than instinct-driven animals.

    In his scenario of “insanity”, Bruce David asks if people such as sociopaths or psychopaths should be held accountable for their actions. In her book “The Sociopath Next Door”, Dr. Martha Stout presents case examples of such behavior. These are people without a conscience, without empathy. Dr. Stout describes them as having “antisocial personality disorder” and her research suggests that they may be created, not born, from a nation whose culture is obsessed with winning at all costs.

    Diagnostically, insanity is completely different from sociopathy. Sociopaths (such as the Tsarnaev brothers whose bombs killed 3 in Boston) can and should be punished for their actions. The Bible also speaks of the conscience. Hebrews 13:18 speaks of “an honest conscience”. Titus 1:13,15 speaks of those having “defiled consciences.” In the latter instance, one’s conduct would be controlled by a fear of exposure and punishment, rather than a true sense of having done something wrong.

  29. 29
    Bruce David says:

    Barb, re. #28:

    Dr. Stout describes them as having “antisocial personality disorder” and her research suggests that they may be created, not born, from a nation whose culture is obsessed with winning at all costs.

    How interesting. Werner Erhard, who was one of my spiritual teachers once remarked that there are two things about which Americans are crazy, literally—sex and money. When I heard that, I thought to myself (and still think), there is a third—competition.

  30. 30
    Bruce David says:

    Joe, re. #26:

    What I take away from your comment is that for you there are two kinds of people—normal people who enjoy free will and those who don’t because of “hardware malfunctions”, the latter being essentially like Coyne’s vision of the nature of all of us. So Coyne is half right in your view.

    But your scheme still begs the question of at what point do strong emotions cross over into “hardware malfunctions”? You can’t look at actions to determine the answer, either, because then anyone who commits crimes of passion would by definition be in the grip of a “hardware malfunction” and thus not responsible for their actions.

  31. 31

    Bruce David @30:

    What I take away from your comment is that for you there are two kinds of people—

    No. There are three kinds of people.

    Those who can count.

    And those who can’t.

    🙂

  32. 32
    Bruce David says:

    Thanks, Eric. I never knew that. 🙂

  33. 33
    Joe says:

    Bruce,

    Coyne doesn’t think free will exists. I do.

    And if you have a hardware malfunction it is still you doing it. So you are responsible. However the Court does recognize some hardware malfunctions….

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    Eric,

    There are 10 kinds of people- those who understand binary and those who do not….

  35. 35
  36. 36
    Joe says:

    I can’t remember who I stole that from but it’s a keeper… 🙂

Leave a Reply