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
Subject: Re: Acausal Brain Activity, again
Message-ID: <1606@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 19:34:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1606
Posted: Tue Aug 27 19:34:15 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 09:40:40 EDT
References: <1243@sjuvax.UUCP> <27500091@ISM780B.UUCP> <1523@pyuxd.UUCP> <674@psivax.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 24

>>was ultimately deterministic or not.  It is irrelevnat to the subject at
>>hand, which is:  can there be a "will" that controls human action independent
>>of the status of the person's current chemical makeup and surrounding
>>environment?

> 	That is not my perception of the question.  You are making the
> assumption that your definition of free will is the only one, it
> isn't. I would say the question is "can there be a will that makes
> decisions which effect subsequent events?"
> 	My answer to your question would be no there cannot, but
> what does that have to do with free will?
> 				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

Everything, for that is what free will means.  And I am sick and tired of
hearing people claim that this is "my definition" that I am "assuming"
is the only one.  Especially when we hear people glorifying the notion
we can simply change the meaning of words to new private definitions
that "work" better to prove their point, as if the fact that millions
of people speak and use the language hoping for some degree of consistency
of meaning (that's what a language is!) is just some minor inconvenience that
we can deal with later.
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr