Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: EXACTAMOONDO!! (Sarima on free will)
Message-ID: <880@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 15:16:28 EST
Article-I.D.: wucs.880
Posted: Wed Apr 10 15:16:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Apr-85 00:55:46 EST
Reply-To: pvt1047@wucec2.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 33

Lines beginning with > are from gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)

> Yes, I believe that there is no free will.  But I am also a
> reasonably moral person, I fret about decisions like everyone 
> else, and I judge people by the way they act -- all just as those
> [who] believe free will exists.

Actually I think those actions show that you *do* believe you have
free will -- *in the original, primary sense of the term*.  Namely,
in the sense in which free will = self-control by evaluation of options,
AND ***NOT*** = a "ghost in the machine".  The false association of
free will with "ghost in the machine" stems from our religious tradition
and is supported by overzealous "debunkers" like Rosen.  (If Rosen
can tie down the concept of agency with the metaphysical baggage of
"ghosts in machines", he can kill two birds with one stone -- never
mind the fact that the tie is illegitimate.)

Lines beginning with < are from friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)

< [In reply to Gordon Moffett]
<	You [Gordon] are making an assumption here, that is:
< "free will implies not-natural". This is unwarrented,
< since there is disagreement about what free-will *is*,
< you cannot assume it implies supernatural causation.
<				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

EXACTAMOONDO!!!  Yes -- there IS intelligent life on Usenet!
Thanks, I needed that -- I was beginning to think Laura Creighton
and I were the only ones who saw this point.
--
"Who do you call?" 
		"ICONBUSTERS!"
				Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-Chief