Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site l5.uucp Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!l5!laura From: laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Free will: there ain't no Sanity Clause Message-ID: <106@l5.uucp> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: l5.106 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Sep-85 04:46:23 EDT References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1562@pyuxd.UUCP> <164@gargoyle.UUCP> <1663@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Organization: Ell-Five [Consultants], San Francisco Lines: 28 Rich, if I follow your argument, I seem to get this. 1. All actions are caused. 2. The actions of your interior mental states cause some of your actions. 3. Past interior mental states cause present interiro mental states. 4. 5. Those interior mental states are caused by your physical structure as determined by heredity. Therefore: all things are determined. the thesis of free will is invalid. You postulate that all those who believe in free will believe that some outside agent (their soul) is responsible for some of the actions in 3 or 4 or 5. Therfore you think that all those who believe in free will also believe in souls. This is not the only objection that has been made to the thesis of strict determinism. A good many people do not buy postulate 1 -- they think that some actions are definitely caused, but others are either uncaused or self-causing. For these people, a non-belief in determinism does not imply a belief in souls. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa