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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: Is what Torek calls "free will" really "free"?
Message-ID: <1303@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 00:45:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1303
Posted: Wed Jul 24 00:45:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 06:26:03 EDT
References: <6156@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1041@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2105 net.religion:7269

>>[...] What Torek and others are saying (I think) is that we can discard 
>>the non-material implications of free will, and still leave the term with
>>a meaning that corresponds pretty closely with common-sense notions of 
>>what "free" means.

> EXACTAMOONDO!  I couldn't have said it better (or even as well) myself.

If only we were dealing with common-sense definitions here. :-)

> --Paul V Torek, aspiring language reformer

Next task for Paul:  change the meaning of unicorn to horse so that unicorns
can exist.  Language reform (the way you seem to go about it) is a tough
job, but nobody should be doing it.  (At least not that way.)
-- 
"There!  I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!"			Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr