Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Redefining free will
Message-ID: <161@frog.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 16:10:55 EST
Article-I.D.: frog.161
Posted: Wed Mar 13 16:10:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 03:45:02 EST
References: <627@pyuxd.UUCP> <159@frog.UUCP>, <663@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 17

>> To argue that there might be something outside of cause and effect
>> that is somehow related to our conciousness is so far from the
>> common understanding of the word "free" that the expression "free
>> will" as it is commonly interpreted in philosophy should be replaced
>> with something suitable to what is being discussed.  The discussion

>From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
>As Schopenhauer said:  "A man can do what he wants to, but he cannot want
>what he wants to."  If he could, that would be free will.  As long as
>we are not free to want what we want to want, as long as that wanting is
>controlled by something, we have no free will.

"Controlled" by something?? :-)  How much time do you think people
would squander discussing the traditional "free will" if instead it
were called "absurd will" (to try to pick a suitable term)?

					David Hudson