Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Oxford English Dictionary vs. Rosen on 'free will'
Message-ID: <924@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 16:08:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.924
Posted: Sun Apr 28 16:08:10 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 04:39:40 EDT
References: <918@wucs.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 28

All right, Paul.  You're so fucking unhinged by my decapitation of your
concepts that you spend hundreds of lines just plowing through dictionaries
picking out as many words as you can to support your "cause".  (e.g.,
"WILFRED:  a large green thing that is almost an anagram of the phrase "free
will" and has nothing to do with "souls" or anything else Rich Rosen has
said", as extracted from the Oxford English dictionary.  See?)  My point
was and still is:  the notion of free will as you describe it, being
free to engage in actions independent of any external or internal interference,
IMPLIES DIRECTLY some agent that is external to physical cause and effect!
IMPLIES DIRECTLY, meaning that it can be deduced LOGICALLY from the premises
of the definitions using the very same logical reasoning you take as a given
elsewhere!  You ignored my points on "how can one have free will if one is
not free to 'choose' the experiences that happen in one's life, some
truamatic, that directly influence and in some cases control the way events
and phenomena are interpreted by the brain, stored, and used as a BASIS for
later decisions?"  You ignored them completely.  Why?  Because it INTERFERES
DIRECTLY with your blind assumptions that free will, in some form, MUST
exist, no matter how much twisting and redefinition you must do.  I never
claimed that the implications were imbedded in the definition!  I said that
they were CONSEQUENCES of that definition.  For reasons listed above.  (How
can you be free to choose anything if the elements of choice and decision are
part of your physical make-up which is involved in the cause and effect chain?
Thus to have such a thing, you MUST have something outside this chain... I
repeat myself very unnecessaily.  I've said this before and Paul's obviously
not listening anyway.)
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr