Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: External Influences
Message-ID: <231@umich.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: umich.231
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:54:38 EDT
References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> <661@psivax.UUCP> <1555@pyuxd.UUCP> <675@psivax.UUCP> <1607@pyuxd.UUCP> <492@spar.UUCP> <636@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 19
Summary: Internal *conscious* influences are the beef

In article <636@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>Yes, one can get a consistent definition of free will in this way [by
>considering "external influences" to refer to those *currently* influencing 
>objects which are external to the person --pvt].  But you don't want it.  
>It obliges to grant that my computer, which is a running a program
>I entered and commanded it to run some time ago, is exhibiting free will.

Nay, there's a difference.  An act of "free will" is caused by a *conscious
mind*.  (By the way, I've thought about T. Dave Hudson's argument that
free will should be *defined* via the notion of activity caused by a
conscious mind; and that r-e-a should not be built into the definition of
free will but should be part of the explanation of it, as one of the 
conditions for it.  (I hope I represent his views accurately.)  Mr. Hudson,
take a bow:  you've convinced me (no easy feat! :->).)

--Paul V Torek, Bill Honig Fan Club
(Bill Honig is California's Superintendent of Public Instruction; recently
California rejected high school science texts because publishers had played
down evolution under pressure from fundamentalists)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com