In Reply to: You missed it. The Architect discussed free will <nt> posted by kSpace on May 18, 2003 at 21:49:14:
They are not the same as choice can be limited and therefore subject to rules (as the architect implied . . . what do you think programming is?) . True "Free will" cannot be.I had been present during that scene when I first saw it but you got me wondering whether or not I mis-heard, so I just saw the film again (rug-rats, obnoxious 20 somethings and all, but it was a gloomy Friday). I did not mis-hear.
I am less damning of the "adolescent philosophising" than I was. Though far from original or profound, it is probably the only way 3/4ths of the audience is ever exposed to the ideas. No wonder they are moved to paroxysms of admiration.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Au contraire, he said "Choice", not "Free Will" - Auricle 07:10:27 05/24/03 (5)
- Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - kSpace 00:21:56 05/25/03 (2)
- Re: Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - I.Kill.Hackers 20:00:40 05/25/03 (1)
- Re: Literal vs Implicit / Choice vs Free Will - Hawklord 06:06:28 06/01/03 (0)
- it's stimulating art-philosophy - njjohn 16:23:29 05/24/03 (0)
- Re: Au contraire, he said "Choice", not "Free Will" - NapTime 09:15:33 05/24/03 (0)