Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Non sequitur about free will
Message-ID: <6282@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 14:45:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6282
Posted: Tue Jun  4 14:45:19 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 11:35:04 EDT
References: <1039@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 26
Summary: So, Adler is wrong too.

In article <1039@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>
>I just witnessed (by accident) the tail end of a discussion between
>Ray Smullyan and Mortimer Adler on Buckley's "Firing Line" program.
>Adler concluded by talking about free will, and claiming that belief in free
>will is impeded in so-called determinists because they fail to understand
>the possibility of non-materialist non-causational "causes" for decisions.
>
>It would seem that he is thus implying that free will requires a non-
>material, non-"cause-and-effect"-al basis for our decisions.  

He didn't just imply that, he stated it in so many words.  (I saw the
same program.)  So, Adler agrees with you -- and you're both wrong.  Adler
gave no argument for his view on "Firing Line", as far as I could tell.
He gives some argument in his book, but not a convincing one.  But why
don't you read Adler (*Ten Phil. Mistakes*), and if you think his
arguments are sound, I'll try to find the holes in them.

>Are you listening, Mr. Torek?  It would seem that those who discuss free
>will are talking in these terms precisely, contrary to your claims.  

Not ALL of "those who discuss free will".  Daniel Dennett is an example
of someone who disagrees with Adler, and argues against Adler's position
(quite well, I might add!).  
--
The Aspiring Iconoclast himself.