:::::::The difficulty that Hume faced, and those since his time, is how to allow for free will in a totally naturalistic system. I find they often take the conclusion (we have free will) and try to force it backwards to fit in a way that presumes it must fit when it doesn't. It is also common today for naturalists to simply state that we have no free will, a positition that is certainly more sound based on the naturalistic evidence, but doesn't appear to match what we see in reality. Hume also had the advantage of ignorance, having only the barest knowledge of the naturalistic system that has been fleshed out in much greater detail today. One can speculate a role for 'randomness' back then that just isn't seen in our knowledge of naturalistic functions today. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
(unindent) I'm jumping in here, because Hume seems to have said that either our decisions - such as mine just now to take issue with the way the article is going - are either (1) caused by external stimuli or (2) completely random. But this is the fallacy of the [[excluded middle]]. No one '''causes''' me to decide a certain way. Between stimulus and response there is plenty of time for me to exercise [[agency (philosophy)]], i.e., to "[[Be proactive]]" as Stephen Covey would say.
The error stems from the materialistic assumption that only physical forces or physical phenomena can be causes. But an angel just appeared beside me and said, "That is balderdash, my good man!" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)