Agreed. It's one of those things _so_ often glossed over: We
  know as much as we know, and then make a strong assumption about
  the rest, declaring, "Therefore, no free will". or "Therefore,
  free will".

  But the ambiguity remains. I see no other decent recourse but to
  accept both as equally true/false enough and/or/both as
  equivalent.

  It's not a "clean" position to hold. Even myself, I felt the
  need to "choose" for pragmatic reasons. But even then, strip
  away the pragmatism and really, whichever one chooses, does not
  negate the other one in any way because we _don't_ have enough
  information and it's unlikely we -can- ever have enough
  information. The only distinction one can do would be that of
  pragmatic/practical reasons. *Why* is someone choosing one over
  the other and going through elaborate justifications for their
  position. _that's_ something that can be debated. But an
  absolute, "Yes/No True/False" to Free Will/No Free Will? it's a
  political/religious choice.

You are viewing proxied material from sdf.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.