home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!wang!lee
- From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
- Subject: Re: Free will
- Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.
- Distribution: usa
- Date: 21 Jul 92 15:06:20
- Message-ID: <LEE.92Jul21150620@meercat.wang.com>
- In-Reply-To: cash@convex.com's message of 20 Jul 92 05:15:58 GMT
- References: <1992Jul19.001318.8434@a.cs.okstate.edu>
- <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu>
- <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com>
- Sender: news@wang.com
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Jul20.051558.14985@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:
-
- In article <1992Jul19.014518.13885@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@pell50.alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
-
- > I also don't see the conflict between physics and free will. Physics
- >does not deal with any living or self-ordering system which is the only
- >thing that can have a free will.
-
- Yes, I share your puzzlement. I simply don't understand how people can
- discuss "free will" in this thread without ever telling anyone what it is,
- and I have no idea whatever what physics has to do with this "free will".
-
- Is this an in-joke about definition (or word-games, or
- deconstruction)? Well if it isn't, I have the same problem with
- "share" and "puzzlement", to say nothing of "understand" and "tell"
- and "idea" and "do". And what the hell is this "physics" stuff? (If
- Peter Cash merely feels that more terminological clarity is needed, he
- should attempt to provide it, rather than just Socratically---and
- rather pompously---complaining.)
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
- (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-