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 ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!usenet From: usenet@ucbvax.ARPA (USENET News Administration) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: net.philobotomy Message-ID: <10521@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 03:01:37 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.10521 Posted: Thu Oct 3 03:01:37 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:46:37 EDT References: <544@spar.UUCP> <1827@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 22 >>>>>All those who believe in free will must of necessity and implication >>>>>believe in souls. >> You frequently harass others for holding nonlogical axioms -- >> such as faith in God. But as long as such ides are openly and >> honestly admitted to be axioms, not presented as propaganda, not >> contradictory to the either science or logic, AND NOT CLAIMED TO >> BE SUPERIOR TO OTHER POINTS OF VIEW, they are far more acceptable >> in what purports to be a philosophical forum than ... One of my pet projects is to try to have the "existence of the soul" (or the non-existence of the soul) added as an axiom to various theories in order to investigate the consequences. (without any religious doctrine or speculation about God included, hopefully.) Anyone willing to comment? Does the above lead to logical contradictions? Thanks very much, -Tom tedrick@berkeley Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com