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!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: So THIS is how it works!
Message-ID: <1594@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 16:02:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1594
Posted: Sun Sep 15 16:02:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:15:30 EDT
References: <1695@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 34

In article <1695@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>> 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.

>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication believe
>in souls.  There is of course nothing to stop a person from holding two
>contradictory beliefs.  It's just a sign that they haven't thought things
>through.

I see.  "I don't care what they say, I know that they believe in souls!"
I always wondered why I never understood Objectivity.  I always that it had
something to do with evidence, but obviously I was wrong.

[End heavy sarcasm, for those who didn't notice]

>> 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 [them], a non-belief in determinism does not imply
>> a belief in souls.

>Do they believe this (obviously an assertion without evidence behind it)
>for a solid logical reason, or because choosing that precept allows them to
>reach a conclusion they want, e.g., god or free will?

And I always thought that objective truth had something to do with evidence.
Rich seems to be saying that you can claim something to be false merely
because it is useful to someone else.  I notice that he doesn't apply this
standard to himself, though.

Charley Wingate  (The last mangoe in College Park)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com