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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Re: freedom and unpredictability
Message-ID: <390@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Jun-85 17:04:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.390
Posted: Fri Jun 21 17:04:39 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Jun-85 04:45:54 EDT
References: <325@spar.UUCP> <27500082@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 20
Summary: what implications of my def. are wrong?

I appreciated much of what Jim Balter (ima!jim) said, but I want to
know why he writes:
>
>Paul gives definitions that he thinks are reasonable and match common 
>sense.  I happen not to agree.

You've been largely silent until now.  What are your objections?
Replying to Rich Rosen you say:

>...  Simply stating your definition and asking people if they agree
>with it is not sufficient, since other definitions have not been stated
>and since people are naive about contradictions embedded in
>reasonable-sounding defintions.  The question is, do the
>*conclusions/predictions* of what is or is not a free choice given your
>definition match peoples' expectations.

I take it this means you find some conclusions/predictions about what is
a free choice, given my definition, to be defective.  Which?

--Paul Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief